I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine

Question

I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of the toner in the machine. I went to Brother’s website and and it says:

“The toner cartridge shelf life is 2 years if the protective bag is unopened or 6 months after the protective bag is opened.”

I print infrequently and only a few pages a month and was hoping the toner would last for years, but am I wrong?

Will it start to clump in the printer after 6 months? I was going to get a laser printer instead of an inkjet because inkjet printers clog often if not used every week or two and use a lot of ink in the cleaning cycles. But if the toner only lasts 6 months then I have a similar problem with the laser printer.

Can someone clarify which I should get for my infrequent printing needs? I only need to print black and white.

Solution 1

Will it start to clump in the printer after 6 months?

Very unlikely unless you're keeping the toner in an especially warm and humid location.

I purchased a Samsung Laser MFD (CLX-6260FW) over two years ago, and I've had no issues with it. It came with a set of "starter" toner cartridges:

• Black - 1503 impressions / 2000 page capacity
• CMY - 645 impressions / 1500 page capacity

About 1.5 years after receiving it, the cartridges each showed as "0% remaining" and required "immediate user intervention" so I purchased more to be prepared (6k Black, 3.5k CMY), but a further ~7 months later, the original cartridges are still going strong. Others have suggested that toner can still be good after ten or more years.

Toner cartridges can benefit from a gentle shake (side-to-side), which helps to redistribute the contents, but this tends to be required when they start to get low and show print issues... rather than due to toner clumping up. Be wary of vigorous shaking, as any toner leaks / spills will be a significant issue (for both cleaning and respiration).

---

I flat out refused to buy a printer for a long time, but it's become more necessary for me in recent years. I decided against any inkjet technology (including HP PageWide / fixed head printers, which can be presented similarly to a consumer) for a number of reasons... critically:

• Idle Inkjet printers get "gunked" up very quickly - if you're not printing regularly, then the head quickly becomes caked in dried ink, which requires careful and expensive cleaning (ink is expensive) - potentially requiring hand cleaning or even a replacement head (or whole printer)
• Running costs: replacement ink is incredibly expensive, and DIY refills are becoming harder and harder due to DRM - Printer Ink is one of the most expensive liquids in the modern world - See "Ink Cartridges are A Scam".
• I've long maintained that "printing is the weak link in computing" - Inkjet printers have a habit of jamming, chewing on paper, wearing out... mechanically they are far from a sound idea

With the price and size of laser printers now, I'd recommend that nobody purchases an Inkjet ever again (budget permitting of course, they are still a bit more expensive in the short term).

While laser printers are quantitatively worse for high-quality photo printing, I'd suggest that unless high-quality photo printing is a very important and regular use-case for you, laser will be just fine. For occasional high-quality photo printing, use an online service.

---

To expand on the running costs of an Inkjet printer briefly, consider some random HP cartridges.

While the upfront cost is much higher, the running cost is significantly lower (probably better than ~50%).

HP Inkjet Black Ink Cartridge

• HP "No. 45", claims a coverage of ~930 pages, for £44.95
  • 4.8p / page
• HP "No. 300XL", claims a coverage of ~600 pages, for £36.73
  • 6.1p / page

An approximate ~5.5p / page of black and white only printing... completely ignoring the use for alignment, head cleaning, wastage due to being dried out, wastage due to re-prints, wastage due to DRM, etc...

High capacity inkjet cartridges (e.g: HP 973X) can work out dramatically cheaper than this on a strict per-page calculation, though their high-capacity nature will incur a far higher cost due to wastage for infrequent printing.

HP Laser Black Toner Cartridge

• HP 1500, claims a coverage of ~5,000 pages, for £100.50
  • 2.1p / page
• HP 642A, claims a coverage of ~7,500 pages, for £206.23
  • 2.7p / page
• HP 645A, claims a coverage of ~13,000 pages, for £320.95
  • 2.5p / page

An approximate ~2.4p / page of black and white only printing.

Solution 2

Not to get dragged into a laser vs inkjet debate (laser is far superior.), I will simply add my experiences using lasers.

Do not be worried about the toner going bad. I have never had it happen, nor heard of it going bad.

I have a Brother H-2140 sitting next to me now, it was manufactured in January 2008. It gets little use. The toner in it now is over 2 years old (and that is only the second cartridge in its entire life). So using (very) old toner is not an issue.

There are a host of HP laser printers at work, all with mixed amounts of use, some with OEM toner others with cheap ebay toner. Some machines sit unplugged for long periods of time until needed, no issues with toner in any of them.

---

Under no circumstance would I consider buying an ink jet, especially for infrequent use. An inkjet will either use up all the ink sitting idle, or if you unplug the printer will ruin it. The ink really can dry up and clog the print head, (have had it happen).

Solution 3

I have had my printer, a Fuji Xerox CM305DF for more than 3 years. The cartridges (rated at 3000 pages) are still 3/4 full - I have only printed about 1500 pages. The toner seems to be perfectly OK.

In most laser printers, the toner is stirred whenever a print is made. This is true regardless of whether the cartridge and drum are together (as is the case for most mono printers), or when the cartridge is far removed from the drum (most colour lasers). As a result caking or clumping should not be a problem.

In general, I agree with your comment about inkjets. In many inkjets only 50% or less of the ink makes it onto the page. The rest is used in regular head cleans (e.g. every time it wakes up) or in emergency cleans (when the print quality suffers from a clogged jet). Inkjets also need to be used regularly. If you leave them switched off for a couple of months, you can expect to waste large volumes of ink to get the jets working properly again. Lasers do not have any of these problems.

Inkjets have a place if your main use is printing photos. On photo paper they do a far better job than any laser. On the other hand, on plain paper any laser will print better photos than an inkjet. When considering an inkjet for photos, make sure you include the cost of photo paper, which is something like 20c for 4" x 6". Including the ink, you'll be up for close to 50c per photo. If you get them printed at the nearest shop, the same photos will cost you 10c or less and the quality will be even better. Of course, it does mean you have to wait a couple of hours to get your hands on them.

Solution 4

To add another data point, I have an inherited LaserJet 4250, and according to the supplies status page, the toner was first used in May 2008, just shy of 11 years as of this writing. The capacity and page counts are within limits, and it works perfectly fine.

This is backed up by the fact that HP has a warranty on laser cartridges that lasts until the printer reports the toner is consumed, and states

There is no expiration date for the use of HP toner cartridges.

This is in contrast to inkjet supplies which are marked with a end-of-warranty date.

Solution 5

Your choices

Other answers point out cost advantages for lasers, and attest to the longevity of toner. That's all true. But the simple fact is that if you need a printer for occasional use and it will sit idle for months, a laser printer is really your only practical option.

There are some other technologies that have a long shelf life for the supplies but they generally aren't used for day-to-day printing requirements. Virtually all consumer printing is either inkjet or laser.

Inkjets can't

An inkjet will be problematic if it sits even a few weeks without use because the ink dries out in the print head and clogs it. Beyond that, ink cartridges actually have a limited shelf life. Even unopened cartridges deteriorate in a few years. Once the cartridge is installed, its ink slowly dries out inside the cartridge and changes consistency. It can become unusable in a year or two. So inkjet printers just aren't compatible with this kind of usage.

Lasers can

Which brings us to your question of whether laser printers can't do it, either, based on Brother's "best if used by" date. A shelf life of 6 months after opening simply isn't realistic. Brother would probably claim that it's to ensure that customers get the best possible performance. But I suspect it's really to fool some customers into buying more toner so it's "fresh".

On a time scale of less than many years, the primary issue is the potential for the toner to absorb some humidity and clump together inside the cartridge. If that happens after sitting idle for 6 months, shaking the cartridge is a trivial fix. The toner will still work for an extremely long time. So yes, a laser printer can handle your usage pattern without a problem.

I'll add another example of personal experience to the responses. I have a 15 year old HP 1012 laser printer connected to an old computer in a back room. It gets used a few times a year. The toner cartridge is a dozen years old and still prints just fine (and I don't think I've ever had to even take it out and shake it).

View more solutions

Comments

[Tetsujin]

It might be different per manufacturer, but I bought a Samsung that lasted for 10 years on the same ink. When it eventually ran out, it was cheaper to buy a new printer than new ink. Unfortunately, the printer companies got wise to that so now sell new machines with only half-full ink. Current machine, an HP, has now been running over 2 years without issue.

[Attie]

@Tetsujin - Is that Ink(jet) or Toner (Laser)? - 10 years on one set of inkjet cartridges is impressive!

[Tetsujin]

@Attie - Laser. I print so infrequently I got totally sick of having to waste 10 sheets of paper cleaning up the ink jets every time I wanted to print something. The Laser just sat there, always on [very low power sleep mode], always ready to go. The newer one, an HP all-in-one, seems to be ready to do the same. It's a lot better functionally, so I might even consider buying new ink when it runs out ;)

[Michael Harvey]

Laser printers don't use "ink". They use toner.

[Tetsujin]

@MichaelHarvey - potato potato. Same end result.

[Michael Harvey]

If you are in a discussion about laser printers, and you talk about "ink", you will make people think you are talking about ink jet printers, and that you have made an error.

[davidgo]

The brother printer I use hs had its toner last years - and I live in a humid environment. I dont think toner clumping is likrly to be an issue.

[Neil_UK]

I think Brother are being pessimistic to cover themselves. Most users of toner will get years out of them if they print only infrequently

[Peter Mortensen]

Related: Ink Cartridges Are A Scam

[Tetsujin]

I think we can probably drop the ink vs toner discussion. It's not as though it's an answer I can edit. It's a comment which would look odd if I suddenly re-entered it in a corrected form way down here.

[jamesqf]

I've found that a better solution to my ink cartridges drying out because of infrequent printing problem is simply to do my printing at the local public library at 25 cents per page.

[n0rd]

I have Brother laser printer for couple of years now, never changed cartridges, works fine so far.

[Eyal]

I have a Apple LaserWriter 16/600 PS, circa 1995. Still going strong to this day, although the plastic paper tray does have a crack or two due to the plastic going brittle over the years. I only print every few months, but I've never had an issue with the toner cartridges, which I buy remanufactured. Switching to a laser printer was the best decision I ever made. The only reason anyone should buy an inkjet is if they regularly print photos. If you only print photos occasionally, go to a dedicated photo printing service, which will produce much better quality photos for cheaper than home.

[Johnny Mopp]

We recently purchased an HP with free ink for life. You get 15 pages/month. Small fee after that. And they auto ship ink to you. So far it’s been good for us as we don’t print often.

[trognanders]

Buy a used LaserJet 4250...

[Loren Pechtel]

I will second Brother being pessimistic. I have a Brother color laser with installed cartridges that are something like 4 years old. Cartridges on the shelf, though, will have some trouble. Lots of tipping before installation helps and after a while they behave anyway.

[barbecue]

Brother is not pessimistic, they're just trying to get you to buy more toner. Brother makes some of the most wasteful printers on the planet. Deliberately.

[Mazura]

Until recently I had a old laser left behind in an office (the last available drivers were for Win2000...). Once in a while I had to take it out and shake it, then it'd work well enough for printing receipts. I tossed it because I was tried of keeping a 2ooo OS going, not because it didn't work.

[manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact]

@JohnnyMopp We recently purchased an HP with free ink for life. You get 15 pages/month. Small fee after that. And they auto ship ink to you. That's HP Instant Ink. Watch out (a) if you start printing more you overpay for the extras far more than the ink cartridges purchased separately and (b) you may find that you can't later easily switch to using other cartridges that you actually purchase separately. I have done a full analysis of the HP Instant Ink program if you are interested in reading more.

[Michael Harvey]

I have had an HP colour laser (an M251nw) since May 2015, it came with "500 page" starter cartridges, the black lasted 3 years, and had done 500 pages when I changed it, it started giving warnings about the cyan about 100 pages ago, the page count says 708 pages, but still printing fine. I'll buy some colour toners when the output starts looking strange.

[Matt]

Regarding your suggestion to not buy inkjet. Im fairly certain the quality of an inkjet print is still substantially better than a laser. You can print reasonable photographs with inkjet, but not so much with laser.

[Michael Harvey]

"About 1.5 years after receiving it, the cartridges each showed as "0% remaining" and required "immediate user intervention" so I purchased more to be prepared (6k Black, 3.5k CMY), but a further ~7 months later they're still going strong." - I have found this. My Brother mono laser lasted 7 years (2008 - 2015) on its "starter" cartridge.

[Tetsujin]

It was a Samsung CLX[can't remember the number] that I had for 10 years. It got a bit squeaky over time, but never failed. I just got a new one when the original toner ;) ran out, though they used to sell them with full cartridges, not part-filled like they do now.

[Charles Duffy]

@Matt, ...there's a big difference if you're measuring "quality" by sharpness of black-and-white text, or "quality" by ability to reproduce colors. Laser printers have been reigning champions of the former category for a long, long time.

[Attie]

@Matt - indeed, though OP asked about black and white... I've added a statement about photo printing for completeness, but unless high-quality photo is your primary use, inkjet is generally still a poor choice (use an online service for photos)

[Matt]

@Attie Ahh, I missed that last sentence. But yes, I agree. I have been quite happy with the monochrome laser I have had for 7 years having replaced the toner only once and would not replace it with an inkjet.

[Jamin Grey]

@Matt The quality of laserjet color image printing has actually improved surprisingly alot over the past few years - depending on printer. Inkjet is still better for real quality photo printing, but after moving from an inkjet to laser just a year ago, I'm quite pleased with the color image printing of my Brother HL-L8260CDW for basic household needs including printing color stickers for children or colored spreadsheets w/ images, or colored artwork for food labels. I am rather disappointed in toner consumption by this printer though!

[jpmc26]

Now do the math for ink-jets where you just buy new printers that are cheaper than the cartridges every time you run out of ink. =)

[Gasur]

I think it is unfair that you compared low capacity inkjet cartridges to high capacity toner cartridges. Instead you should've added HP 973X, which is cheaper than all the toners you linked, at a whopping 1.4p/page.

[Attie]

@Gasur - fair point, I have to admit I tried to "randomly" select some cartridges for each without doing extensive research / comparisons... Though for reasons mentioned already, and for the topic of discussion ("infrequent printing") a high capacity ink cartridge like that is going to be a poor choice and will likely work out to much more than 1.4p / page due to wastage. I've added a comment to my answer to address this... Can you comment on HP's PageWide technology WRT infrequent printing? (I considered it ~2 years ago, before researching the tech, finding Inkjet, and dismissing them)

[Gasur]

@Attie I agree, however, it is still something that should be commented on or at least add one high capacity one with a disclaimer of what you said. PW handles infrequent printing a lot better than my old Epson. It can easily go months without printing. The ink last a long time too without drying out. So far 2 years is no issue for the starter cartridge.

[ganesh]

Mine is not quite that old, but my laser printers drivers support also ended with XP (and with the original toner still in use).

[ivanivan]

@Hennes - non-windows systems print to them just fine... :)

[Blrfl]

That's impressive. My 4L was purchased new in 1995 and I think might be on its third cartridge.

[davidbak]

Nobody who ever used a line printer would think that "printing is the weak link in computing. Newer technology printers, yes, maybe. But there was a golden era of printing in computing and it sounded like this.

[Harper - Reinstate Ukraine]

@davidbak Yeah, and those line printers could wipe out a 2000 page box of paper in about 5 minutes. Fed by a computer less powerful than an Arduino. There was crazy coding involved just in keeping data flowing fast enough to keep up with the printer!

[Harper - Reinstate Ukraine]

Yeah, and you're not even pricing aftermarket cartridges. That makes laser printing way under a penny a page.

[tvdo]

> Toner cartridges can benefit from a good shake -- if you ever decide to do this, please only ever lightly shake it side-to-side (more of a light sway than a shake). Many toner cartridges will spill everywhere if you shake them up and down -- there's often an opening on the top (along a similar vein, don't turn it upside down).

[Ruslan]

"on plain paper any laser will print better photos than an inkjet" — very wrong. My Epson AcuLaser C1100 has never printed a photo with acceptable colors (although it's in good condition, and is not low on toner). In particular, its cyan toner is too dark, closer to blue than to cyan. Maybe newer printers/better cartridges would result in better quality, but for "any laser printer" your statement is too strong.

[hdhondt]

@Ruslan Something must be wrong with your driver's colour settings settings. And, I was talking about the overall print quality - not the colour quality, which is a separate issue. And, as it's a driver issue, new/better cartridges won't improve your prints.

[Ruslan]

I don't think it's a driver issue, unless it's a bug in the driver: I've tried it on multiple different computers with freshly installed OS (WinXP, then various flavors of Linux), and in all cases the colors were too dark (not in the sense of luminosity, but rather cyan=light, blue=dark). Windows drivers apparently did try to fix this colors, but the results were still very off. Basically, you can't get colors outside of toner+paper gamut.

[AnoE]

While the answer is surely correct, and I agree with the message (I've never bought an inkjet, and always had laser printers), I still think it's not a good answer to be most upvoted. It barely addresses the actual question, but concentrates on inkjets instead. OP already seems to have made his made up about the issue; he now wants information about the life cycle of toners. This answer has nothing about that...

[Attie]

@AnoE ... "It barely addresses the actual question" - I've moved that bit to the top...

[hdhondt]

"you can't get colors outside of toner+paper gamut" that's obvious. It sounds as if there may be too much magenta in the blue, but I'm guessing. Do you want to start a new question about this? Attach some screendumps and scans, and someone may have the answer.

[Criggie]

...aka the Drum.

[Todd Wilcox]

@Criggie Actually it looks like those are two separate things, but they are usually both part of the cartridge and the drum is the one more exposed to light. Light exposure can cause problems with even drum ionization and of course any exposure of the drum risks scratches or dust or finger oils getting on it.

[ganesh]

I guess I could use a vm, but all my physical non-windows running servers are elsewhere.

[manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact]

Agree re: line-interactive UPS. But due to limited run time (aka make 'em cheap by using small batteries), typical consumer/small business UPS (e.g., APC) have some outlets "surge protection only" which is ideal for a laser printer. Just can't print if the power is out, but for most people that is not a big deal. As far as "Ink tank inkjets are the cheapest prints", I challenge you to find me a readily available inkjet < $300 where the mono per page ink costs are lower than a similarly priced laser.

[phLOx]

Most entry level Ink Tank System Inkjets will pass your challenge. While I cannot speak for your availability, the Epson L3110 is priced at $180 and ships with "three year's worth of ink", has a three year manufacturer's warranty and can scan and copy to boot. It claims to be able to print "up to 7500 pages" per 60ml bottle. If that holds true, you are looking at $0,0013 per mono print at 5% coverage. The HP LaserJet Pro MFP M130a has all the above features (excluding color prints), but prints cost $0,023 per page, not including the replacement drum's cost every 8 toner changes.

[manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact]

Interesting. The specs I find show 4,500 pages black, 7,500 pages color. But that is still quite impressive for an inkjet compared tot he typical HP machines. I'm having a little trouble finding that in the US (searches point to Amazon India), but a quick Amazon (US) gives me the Epson Expression ET-2750 for $300 "Includes enough ink to print up to 6,500 pages black/5,200 color" - that's pretty good by itself and add-on ink bottles (Epson brand) $16 for black - that's incredible, even if it only prints 1/2 capacity. Thank you!

[manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact]

Which is why Brother and Okidata have historically made drums separate from toner. A typical machine might have toner ~ 2k - 3k pages with drum 12k - 30k pages. And now HP has started doing it too on some of their low end machines - i.e., the machines where the typical user will keep it less than the lifetime of a drum and therefore the consumables cost goes down significantly compared to toner=drum. I've written about this issue too