HP Photosmart 7760 opinions please

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roots750
  • Start date Start date
R

Roots750

I was unprepared for the HP 7760 I received as a Christmas present and as
such I don't know if it will meet my needs for a printer that will do a very
good job at a reasonable cost per page for photo printing as well as text.
How does this printer perform when compared with to similarly priced units
($150-$200) from Epson,Canon and Lexmark.

Thanks in advance
 
I was unprepared for the HP 7760 I received as a Christmas present and as
such I don't know if it will meet my needs for a printer that will do a very
good job at a reasonable cost per page for photo printing as well as text.
How does this printer perform when compared with to similarly priced units
($150-$200) from Epson,Canon and Lexmark.

Thanks in advance
Click to expand...



HP is a Bubble jet no good for long life Prints, only Epson can do that as its
not a Bubble Jet..

HP Running cost are very high, Canon is the lowest and Lexmark being the
worse
 
HP is a Bubble jet no good for long life Prints, only Epson can do that as
its
not a Bubble Jet..
Click to expand...

The above a totally incorrect statement. The Photosmart 7760 uses the same
inks as the DeskJet 5550, rated at 73 year display permanence by Wilhelm. See:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp_5550_preview.html. The display permanence
of these prints is significantly better than typical silver halide prints -
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/4x6/WIR_4x6_Prints_2004_12_07.pdf lists Kodak
as 19 years, and Fuji Crystal Archive at 40 Years.

The Photosmart 7760 is a nice photo printer. For text printing I would
suggest using the #56 black cartridge rather than the #58 photo cartridge.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
 
William said:
HP is a Bubble jet no good for long life Prints, only Epson can do that as its
not a Bubble Jet..
Click to expand...

Your info is very inaccurate.

Many printers have long life prints using the original inks and papers.
Their life is equal to or better than lab prints. This applies to Canon,
Epson, Lexmark, and HP models.

When it comes to "bubble jet", that's a Canon trademark name for their
line of printers. And even though Epson is not called a bubble jet, it
does use similar inkjet droplet technology. Instead of heating the ink
bubble and firing it out a jet (thermal inkjet), the Epson uses
electricity to expand the ink droplet and fire it out the jet (piezo
inkjet).

They both use jets of ink for printing, hence the name "inkjet". The
difference is only in how the ink is forced out of the jets.
HP Running cost are very high, Canon is the lowest and Lexmark being the
worse
Click to expand...

Again your info is inaccurate.

I have first-hand experience in this as I've owned both Canon and HP
printers and have compared their ink costs and print quality. HP running
costs are not what many people believe.

Take a look at the page yield and costs of cartridges from similar
printers. At first glance, the HP cartridges appear expensive at $50 CDN
for a tri-colour cartridge, while a single Canon ink tank is only $20.
But you need three ink tanks, not just one.
 
Bill said:
William Bell wrote:




Your info is very inaccurate.

Many printers have long life prints using the original inks and papers.
Their life is equal to or better than lab prints. This applies to Canon,
Epson, Lexmark, and HP models.

When it comes to "bubble jet", that's a Canon trademark name for their
line of printers. And even though Epson is not called a bubble jet, it
does use similar inkjet droplet technology. Instead of heating the ink
bubble and firing it out a jet (thermal inkjet), the Epson uses
electricity to expand the ink droplet and fire it out the jet (piezo
inkjet).

They both use jets of ink for printing, hence the name "inkjet". The
difference is only in how the ink is forced out of the jets.




Again your info is inaccurate.

I have first-hand experience in this as I've owned both Canon and HP
printers and have compared their ink costs and print quality. HP running
costs are not what many people believe.

Take a look at the page yield and costs of cartridges from similar
printers. At first glance, the HP cartridges appear expensive at $50 CDN
for a tri-colour cartridge, while a single Canon ink tank is only $20.
But you need three ink tanks, not just one.
Click to expand...

But do these color cartidges usually get used up fairly evenly? It would
be a shame to have to spend $50 on a new cartridge if one or two of the
colors still have useable ink in them...

I am still on the fence with my printer purchase, I almost purchased the
IP5000, but scanning the boxing week sales I see I can get the HP 7760
for C$149.99, $99 after rebates so that is currently the front runner.
The photo grey option is still my #1 reason for the HP, the 2 sided
printing the canon's big +. I suppose I should take a boo at IP4000
prices since that also does 2 sided and is probably closer in price to
what I can get the 7760 for...

decisions decisions! and costco.ca is online soon, and I heard that they
are having BIG discounts during boxing week...
 
Glen said:
But do these color cartidges usually get used up fairly evenly? It would
be a shame to have to spend $50 on a new cartridge if one or two of the
colors still have useable ink in them...
Click to expand...

With typical use, the ink is consumed fairly evenly. However, if you do
a lot of "one-colour" photo prints, like beach shots with big blue
skies, then obviously the cyan will get used quicker.

If you have a specific need to print one-colour photos, then using
individual cartridges is advantageous. But if your use is typical, the
amount of waste in a tri-colour is minimal...not enough to concern most
people.
decisions decisions! and costco.ca is online soon, and I heard that they
are having BIG discounts during boxing week...
Click to expand...

Part of the fun of buying new toys.
:)
 
Back
Top