Samsung Xpress C1810W Wireless Colour Laser Printer $99 + Delivery @ Inkman

80

Go to Deal

Jase2801 on 23/01/2015 - 21:06 inkman.com.au (443 clicks)
Last edited 23/01/2015 - 21:33 by 1 other user

Print Speed (Black)
Up to 19 ppm
Print Speed (Color)
Up to 19 ppm
Print Resolution (dpi)
Up to 9600 x 600 dpi
First Print Out Time (Black)
<16 seconds
First Copy Out Time (Color)
<16 seconds
Emulation PCL5C/6, PostScript 3, PDF V1.7, SPL-C (Samsung Print Language)
Duplex Printing
Manual
Paper Handling
Paper Input Capacity (Standard)
250 sheets
Paper Input Capacity (Multi-purpose/bypass)
1 sheet
Maximum Input Capacity
251 sheets
Output Capacity
100 sheets
Media Sizes
3" x 5" ~ 8.5" x 14"
Media Type Plain, Thin, Thick, Cardstock, Hole Punched, Transparency, PrePrinted, LetterHead, Recycled, Archive, Bond, Label, Envelope, Cotton, Colored, Glossy, Thicker Paper
Display
LCD 2-line LCD Display
General
Processor 533 MHz Dual CPU
Memory 256 MB (Up to 512 MB)
Wireless Yes
Interface
Hi-Speed USB 2.0, 802.11b/g/n wireless, Wi-Fi Direct
Noise Level <50 dBA while printing
Monthly Duty Cycle 40,000 images per month
OS Compatibility Windows (32/64-bit) 2000/XP/2003/2008 Server/Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Various Linux OS, Mac OS X 10.3 ~ 10.9
ENERGY STAR® Compliant Yes
Power Consumption (W) 380 W (Printing), 50 W (Standby), 1.5 W (Sleep), 2.6 W (Sleep with Wi-Fi Direct), 1.26 kWH TEC, 1.52 kWh TEC (with Wi-Fi Direct)
Samsung Mobile Print Yes
NFC Tap & Print Yes
Google Cloud Print Yes
AirPrint Yes
Dimensions
Product Weight (lb.) 36.6 lb.
Shipping Weight (lb.) 43.2 lb.
Weight
Product Dimensions (W x D x H, in) 16.5" x 16.8" x 10.4"
Shipping Dimensions (W x D x H, in) 20.4" x 21.1" x 15.2"
Consumables
Cartridge Type
All-in-One Cartridge
Starter Toner Yield
Black: 1,000 pages, Cyan/Magenta/Yellow: 700 pages each
Toner Cartridge Model and Yield
Black: 2,500 page toner yield (CLT-K504S)
Cyan: 1,800 page toner yield (CLT-C504S)
Magenta: 1,800 page toner yield (CLT-M504S)
Yellow: 1,800 page toner yield (CLT-Y504S)
Waste Toner Bottle Yield and Model
Black: 14,000 pages, Color 3,500 pages (CLT-W504)
Toner Metrics
Declared Yields in Accordance with ISO/IEC 19798
Options
Memory 512 MB (ML-MEM370)

Related Stores

Inkman

• 

  bargaino on 23/01/2015 - 21:28

  And only $400 for a set of full toner cartridges. Or $200 for after-market cheapies.
  So I suppose this is a throw-away item after the included "starter" cartridges are empty.

  Some other colour lasers have much lower toner cost.

  • 

    BlinkyBill on 23/01/2015 - 21:50

    +1

    So just buy 5 printers and throw them away when toners are empty. Even with the starter toners it cheaper just to buy more printers than replacement full toners.

    • 

      bargaino on 23/01/2015 - 22:10

      Poor choice. Better to spend a little more on a printer that has cheap after-market replacement toner available.
      e.g. Brother.
      Preferably toner is separate from the drums.

      • 

        BlinkyBill on 23/01/2015 - 22:19

        if you work off 1000 pages, since 1400 for black and 700 for colour, it works out to 10 cents a page. Then when you consider everytime you do a toner swap your getting a new printer I reckon that's pretty cheap. No drums, waste toners, belts, blah blah to worry about. Sure it's wasteful but meh, I seen so many sub $500 lasers stuff up way before the expected life of the machine.

      • 

        troyww on 24/01/2015 - 00:49

        @BlinkyBill:
        Sad but true .

      • 

        teasatotalling on 24/01/2015 - 07:37

        Yeah, I've noticed Samsung makes fairly cheap printers. I will purchase a Brother because they seem to be better made and functionally designed. I also won't buy Samsung products because of their legal stalling and stonewalling practices, even with compensation payments to families of killed factory workers.

      • 

        Helenn on 24/01/2015 - 11:38

        @yoyomablue:
        Have owned both a brother and a samsung colour laser printer. Small sample but for what it's worth, I have been much happier with the samsung. The print quality is much better and the brother fell apart really quickly and developed a multitude of errors after about a year. Nothing to do with their ethics though.

      • 

        lostn on 24/01/2015 - 15:16

        How much are hard waste disposal costs? Do you just throw it in your standard bin each time? In my area the council comes once a year to take hard waste.

  • 

    Raynes on 23/01/2015 - 22:19

    Holy sheet that's quite an expense.

• 

  catchu on 23/01/2015 - 21:45

  what exactly is memory used for in a printer. ..?

  • 

    TailsK on 23/01/2015 - 21:48

    +3

    Think of it as like a buffer for the documents you send to the printer. The printer stores it in memory then prints it from there. You don't need lots of memory for things like simple Word documents, but you could use a lot for large images, PSDs, stuff like that.

    • 

      mathew42 on 23/01/2015 - 22:47

      +2

      Memory is also used for interpreting the data sent from the computer especially if it is in a file format like PostScript or PCL.

      Memory can also be used for storing printer fonts and caching documents for printing later.

• 

  yojabbajabba on 23/01/2015 - 22:06

  +2

  Manual duplex is a PITA!

  • 

    Helenn on 24/01/2015 - 11:42

    Agree, was about to buy the cheaper version of this on sale at bing lee this morning until I saw that it was manual duplex. like that you can print from tablet though but I use the auto duplex in my old samsung printer almost every time I use it so not worth the upgrade.

• 

  [Deactivated] on 23/01/2015 - 22:07

  Here come the forced printer posts after a bunch of dissapointed Ozb'ers missed out on the Aus Post deal.

• 

  uccoffee on 23/01/2015 - 22:48

  wifi + duplex + colour = great price for single use!

• 

  tc4101 on 24/01/2015 - 01:59

  Beware inkman anything over $99 they charge an extra handling fee of $6 on top if the postage fee which it doesn't tell u after u've registered and at last step of checkout.

  Doesn't apply here because less is $99 but does for other items.

  • 

    damong on 24/01/2015 - 19:44

    It seems it does apply…they added 12.95 extra freight plus 5.95 std deliv. So $18.90 delivery to a Melb suburb is a bit steep

• 

  Geekomatic on 24/01/2015 - 02:33

  +4

  Really hoping no one here actually lends their hands to filling up landfills (for future generations) with non-biodegradable electronics (which also contain circuit boards likely containing poisonous substances) under the guise of "getting a good deal"?

  Sure hope not…that would be pretty lousy.

  • 

    Kanasuke on 24/01/2015 - 04:16

    This might seem unintuitive but, you should generally take the path that is most cost effective for yourself because by doing so, you're sending signals to the market to stop doing things that are economically wasteful or has inefficient processes. Landfills are not the only scarce resource, you have metal ores and petroleums and stuff burnt for energy which is used to power factories, etc. What the market does is, through the economical decisions of millions of buyers, it molds itself towards ever increasing efficiency, meaning decreased consumption of the scarcer resources for inputs (so that you don't run out). That's the gist of it.

    • 

      teasatotalling on 24/01/2015 - 07:28

      One of the biggest shortcomings with market economic theory is externalities. We are seeing that with anthropogenic climate change (although the first world and wealth shields people and creates wilful ignorance).
      The other major problem with market economic theory is the simplistic notion that everything has economic value. Very difficult to put a dollar value on the natural environment.

      • 

        Kanasuke on 24/01/2015 - 15:55

        It is because the state prevents people holding property rights in the natural environment, they suffer a tragedy of the commons, it happens when the penalty for polluting the forests or the riverways are less than what it costs to treat and dispose of industrial wastes properly. In a proper market environment, there would hardly be any land (or ocean) that isn't somebody else's property, and damaging other people's property would incur tremendous penalties.

        I do believe in anthropogenic climate change, I do believe human activity has caused some warming in the environment, but the science is not settled on its effects enough for the state to decide that they should immediately enact insane policies. Not even the carbon tax. For example currently the climate hasn't warmed any in the past 16 years http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-yor…
        and some of the things we just don't understand yet (presented by Roy Spencer) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsxvUQTsIdk#t=1m30s

        My view is that I think it is far more cost effective to just deal with the changes in sea levels or what not, as it comes. I don't believe in the bullshit ads where you see a girl getting swept up by a hurricane. I think it is much more dangerous to give huge amounts of power to the Big international governing bodies. I try not to be one of those ignorants you described I do try to do as much research as I can, but time does not permit :(

      • 

        lostn on 24/01/2015 - 17:45

        @Kanasuke: I love when the warmists claim credit for a hotter than usual summer, but then when there are blizzards and extraordinary freezes elsewhere, they claim credit for that too with their I-told-you-so.

      • 

        teasatotalling on 24/01/2015 - 19:32

        @lostn:
        Actually peer reviewed science 'told you so', over 2 decades ago.

      • 

        teasatotalling on 24/01/2015 - 19:37

        @Kanasuke:
        Forbes is a tabloid rag for right wing simpletons and Roy Spencer is in the minute minority, who has furthermore barely been a secondary, let alone a primary, author on a peer reviewed climatological paper in several years.
        Peer reviewed science is a fair bit more cognitively complex (massive understatement) than mainstream journalism……

      • 

        Kanasuke on 24/01/2015 - 21:53

        @yoyomablue:
        zzz in return what i get for making my argument, is not an argument in return, but a guy looking down from on high.

      • 

        lostn on 25/01/2015 - 01:10

        @yoyomablue:

        Actually peer reviewed science 'told you so', over 2 decades ago.

        About unusually cold weather, like in the US last year for instance?

      • 

        teasatotalling on 25/01/2015 - 06:10

        @lostn:
        The U.S. is but one part of the GLOBE in anthropogenic GLOBAL warming.
        I reckon statistics and hence the concept of averages and distributions should be a mandatory subject in secondary school, not left to tertiary education, where it is subsequently optional in life.

      • 

        teasatotalling on 25/01/2015 - 10:31

        @Kanasuke:
        There is a saying amongst scientists 'opinions are like arse holes, everyone's got one'. Hope you get the gist.

      • 

        lostn on 25/01/2015 - 11:53

        @yoyomablue: If there's cooling and warming in different parts of the world, sounds like it's being averaged out to nothing then. If you're going to say the world is warming, you can't then say, see that freeze over there? That's global warming.

      • 

        Kanasuke on 25/01/2015 - 15:26

        @yoyomablue:
        but what is the only way to prevent ignorance except to engage in the literature yourself and to figure out which argument is more correct? I am not one of those people who uses the excuse that science is impenetrable for the commoner (or economics) and that it is beyond the likes of us to understand, "So just leave the hard part (the thinking) to the experts!" Firstly it is condescending, and secondly that's called being lazy and not willing to spend effort to understand about extremely important issues. In fact, that is much closer in definition to the problem of willful ignorance that you described.
        I believe that if you put in the hard yards, it CAN be understood.

      • 

        teasatotalling on 26/01/2015 - 06:20

        @lostn:
        No, that's right wing simpleton media - very good at a type of reductio ad absurdum…..

      • 

        teasatotalling on 27/01/2015 - 10:03

        @Kanasuke:
        There is no 'argument' in the relevant peer reviewed literature.
        There is only an 'argument' that has been created by simpleton right wing (tautology) media & blogs. And if you follow the paper & money trails, you will find it is predominantly funded by big oil & coal, who have tried to create an 'argument' when there is none.
        This tactic of obsfucation is straight from the big tobacco playbook that tried to create doubt in the public over the link between smoking and cancer (amongst other illnesses/diseases).

      • 

        Kanasuke on 27/01/2015 - 16:52

        @yoyomablue:
        But you argue my point, that's the exact reason why you have to figure out facts yourself. There is vested interests on both sides. US $79 billion+ in research, admin, tax breaks, renewable techs (Not adjusted for inflation over past 20 years) worth of bureaucrats who will actually defend their dough until the very last man standing. With that money you can buy any number of respectable scientists to do your press releases.

      • 

        teasatotalling on 27/01/2015 - 18:38

        @Kanasuke:
        False equivalence.
        The disparity in funding is laughable (1000:1?) and there is no peer review in journalism or blogs (admittedly it isn't the most cognitively challenging literature….)
        The public's doubt over the science of anthropogenic global warming (research finding that by and large it comes from right wing voters) is a reflection on the fact the scientific method and peer review isn't a mandatory topic in secondary school.

  • 

    teasatotalling on 24/01/2015 - 07:31

    Good to see someone avoiding the herd mentality on OzBargain - "me, me, me, me, me, me", while sticking fingers in ears.
    Yes, it's a conundrum purchasing items that go to landfill.

    • 

      Geekomatic on 24/01/2015 - 17:57

      Thank you.

      Isn't it also amazing the justifications people will give to continue to do so?

      "Piles of printers aren't the real problem…"? (because, gov't/big business are worse- I can keep "me, me, me-ing").

      smh