Browse » home» » » Canon PC981

Canon PC981

I bought the Canon PC981 because I run my own business and like to keep a copy of absolutely everything, just in case. I have digital copies of everything, because most of my business is done online, but it’s also nice to have a hard copy of everything. Computers are great but they aren’t infallible and they do break, however much you spend on them.

I have always bought Canon equipment for as long as I can remember because it has always been good quality and easy to use. I have an inkjet printer and a camera of theirs so I didn’t really worry about the quality of the copier.
The other reason I bought it was because of the instant-on function. My previous copier used to need at least 30 seconds to warm up, then another 10 or 20 to produce the first copy. The PC981 needs no warming up and will have the first copy ready within 10 seconds of my asking for it.

The Canon representative said it was something to do with their new toner. It didn’t need warming up like many of the others which meant the machine could just power up and copy away. That appealed to me because I’m not the most patient man on earth at the best of times. The less time I’m hanging around for stuff, the more money I can be making.

The PC981 has enough space for 500 sheets of paper, and another 30 in the document feeder on the side. There is also another 50 that can fit into the bypass tray. That and the fact that the cartridges will last for 4000 sheets before they need replacing means that it doesn’t need much looking after either.

Despite being small, quick and nicely priced there is no compromise on print quality with this machine. Every copy I make comes out the same. Precise, clean, straight lines, sharp edges and more than presentable. Even though I only use mine for filing, I would have no hesitation in using it for marketing or something.

The PC981 is ideal if you only copy a bit and don’t want to spend hundreds of dollars on a machine you will hardly use. While not the cheapest on the market, it is certainly the most cost effective. Running costs are minimal, maintenance is minimal but the productivity is certainly not.
Advertisement