New Kodak Printer questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter theChas.
  • Start date Start date
T

theChas.

The $37 price of HP cartridges has me ticked.
I saw on TV where Kodak had a sell session, where they claimed one of their
printers had about the cheapest ink cartridges.
Does anyone here have knowledge, or tales, about the
Kodak EasyShare 5300, '3 in 1' printer?
Hate to go from the frying pan into the fire.
 
Kodak wants you to buy their paper ink combos to save money.  The ink does not get as good a mileage as they want you to believe.  The printer is about average but better than Lexmark.  It lags somewhat behind Epson and way behind Canon.  In all you spend a little less but get way less than Canon. 

But it is a better choice than the idiots make when they use an Epson or Canon with the crappy fly by nite aftermarket 10th party ink facimile.

theChas. wrote:

The $37 price of HP cartridges has me ticked. I saw on TV where Kodak had a sell session, where they claimed one of their printers had about the cheapest ink cartridges. Does anyone here have knowledge, or tales, about the Kodak EasyShare 5300, '3 in 1' printer? Hate to go from the frying pan into the fire.
 
measekite wrote:



....another one of his usual stupid, uninformed bullshit statements
showing his ignorance.
Frank
 
theChas. said:
The $37 price of HP cartridges has me ticked.
I saw on TV where Kodak had a sell session, where they claimed one of
their
printers had about the cheapest ink cartridges.
Does anyone here have knowledge, or tales, about the
Kodak EasyShare 5300, '3 in 1' printer?
Hate to go from the frying pan into the fire.
Click to expand...


Ignore the following post from measekite!. the Diarrhea that falls from his
mouth is not to be believed. as He does not even own a Kodak and just
blathers away to make himself feel important.

Yes, I have a Kodak 5300 and am glad I bought it instead of the other 3 or 4
popular brands, The carts here in Canada cost me 10.00 for black and 15.00
for color, or a combo pack for 23.00, MUCH much cheaper than the others.
The print results are as good as Canon or Epson in my view, I also have a
canon and HP which have been put in the attic since I purchased the Kodak.
You might like to go to a dealer and have them do a print of one of your
photos , this will then tell you firsthand if it meets your expectations.
As for myself I do recommend this printer, Would I buy again? YES.

regards, Rene
 
Rene said:
Ignore the following post from measekite!. the Diarrhea that falls
from his mouth is not to be believed. as He does not even own a Kodak
and just blathers away to make himself feel important.
Click to expand...
Ignore this post from la la monte. the Diarrhea that falls from his
mouth is not to be believed. Check out all of the reviews from all of
the magazines.
Yes, I have a Kodak 5300 and am glad I bought it instead of the other
3 or 4 popular brands, The carts here in Canada cost me 10.00 for
black and 15.00 for color, or a combo pack for 23.00, MUCH much
cheaper than the others.
Click to expand...

The ink does not go as far. When one color of a multi color goes out
the rest is thrown away. Kodak cannot compare to Canon.
The print results are as good as Canon or Epson in my view,
Click to expand...
Maybe in his view but not in the view of any professional review.
I also have a canon and HP which have been put in the attic since I
purchased the Kodak.
You might like to go to a dealer and have them do a print of one of
your photos , this will then tell you firsthand if it meets your
expectations.
Click to expand...

Not true. Have them do a half dozen 8.5x11 of various photos that
display a plethora of various colors and see for your self.
As for myself I do recommend this printer, Would I buy again? YES.
Click to expand...
First it is not a printer. It is a multifunction device. Many people
had trouble with their scanner. Epson makes the best scanner. Canon
makes the best standard format dye based printer. No ifs ands or buts.

He or her is mistaken.
 
SNIP, a whole pile of garbage.

I won't even lower myself to answer measekites drivel.

Regards, Rene
 
measekite wrote:


....you really don't get it do you meshershithead...ever one here
thinks...no they know...that you are a know nothing idiot moron loser.
You need to stick both of your feet into your mouth at the same time.
Try it.
Frank
 
I have looked at this and its bigger brother. Kodak has several options
offered in terms of consumables. They sell each cartridge separately,
they sell them as a set black and color (it uses two ganged cartridges),
and they sell the cartridges with 4x6 photo paper, if you are making
smaller prints, that's the best deal, I believe.

The inks are pigment and supposed to be long lasting. The build of the
3in1 printer looked pretty nice. The demo model I looked at showed
banding in the prints, but that might just be an abused or not properly
maintained unit. I have seen other output which was not banding.

The main problem I saw was the color rendition. The images had a bit
too garish a look for my liking. The subject of the demo images were all
oversaturated making it hard to know if it was the source material or
the drivers and profiles or the inks. The parrot image for instance,
looked way oversaturated.

I would suggest either seeing if you can find a store which will allow
you to demo an image you know well, or if not ask for print samples from
Kodak and try to decide from them if the color works for you.

Art
 
I to agree with Mr.Entlich.
The pictures were not true to life for my liking.
The copy portion is a little off on accuracy too and loads the paper with
ink.
The prices claimed are with their cheapest photo paper and will compare to
Epson or Canon with the Kodak Ultimate as price per photo.
Just my 1 and 1/2 cents
 
Arthur said:
The main problem I saw was the color rendition. The images had a bit
too garish a look for my liking. The subject of the demo images were all
oversaturated making it hard to know if it was the source material or
the drivers and profiles or the inks. The parrot image for instance,
looked way oversaturated.
Click to expand...

The thought that leaped into my mind was, "Oh, that's just that classic
'Kodachrome Look.'"

It's a Kodak tradition -- that somewhat over-saturated color density
that Kodachrome has been famous for -- which makes it wonderful for use
on overcast days.

And my immediate question, then, is whether the color saturation can be
turned down in the driver. And also, can it be muted in photocopy
controls. If these adjustments can be made easily, and if they'll be
retained nicely, the printer will be civilized.

What do you think, Arthur?

Richard
 
Hi Richard,

I used Kodachrome 25, 64 and 200 for years and the one thing I can say
for it is the originals, kept in dark storage don't seem to have lost
any of their color in 20-30 years. Not as lucky with the Agfa slide
films, although the E-6 Fuji and Kodak are still OK, but I think
somewhat faded.

Unfortunately, I don't know if the saturation can be adjusted, as I
didn't get to play with the unit. I imagine there is some saturation
adjustment in the driver adjustments, but how the ink and paper respond
to lower saturation is hard to know without samples.

Art
 
Rene said:
SNIP, a whole pile of garbage.

snip, a whole pile of garbage
Click to expand...
What was SNIPPED
Ignore this post from la la monte. the Diarrhea that falls from his
mouth is not to be believed. Check out all of the reviews from all of
the magazines.
Yes, I have a Kodak 5300 and am glad I bought it instead of the other
3 or 4 popular brands, The carts here in Canada cost me 10.00 for
black and 15.00 for color, or a combo pack for 23.00, MUCH much
cheaper than the others.
Click to expand...

The ink does not go as far. When one color of a multi color goes out
the rest is thrown away. Kodak cannot compare to Canon.
The print results are as good as Canon or Epson in my view,
Click to expand...
Maybe in his view but not in the view of any professional review.
I also have a canon and HP which have been put in the attic since I
purchased the Kodak.
You might like to go to a dealer and have them do a print of one of
your photos , this will then tell you firsthand if it meets your
expectations.
Click to expand...

Not true. Have them do a half dozen 8.5x11 of various photos that
display a plethora of various colors and see for your self.
As for myself I do recommend this printer, Would I buy again? YES.
Click to expand...
First it is not a printer. It is a multifunction device. Many people
had trouble with their scanner. Epson makes the best scanner. Canon
makes the best standard format dye based printer. No ifs ands or buts.

He or her is mistaken.
 
Arthur said:
Hi Richard,

I used Kodachrome 25, 64 and 200 for years and the one thing I can say
for it is the originals, kept in dark storage don't seem to have lost
any of their color in 20-30 years.
Click to expand...
That is totally false. I have slides of both a number of Kodachrome and
Ektachrome snaps that have been stored in a cool dark place. Some faded
and some faired better. There appears to be no difference between
Kodachrome or Ektachrome in that regard. K is warmer and E is cooler as
it is stated by Kodak.
 
measekite wrote:

....just a bunch of his usual bullshit lies!
Get a life you ****wit moron idiot loser.
Frank
 
 Ignore the following post from measekite!. the Diarrhea that falls fromhis
mouth is not to be believed. as He does not even own a Kodak and just
blathers away to make himself feel important.

Yes, I have a Kodak 5300 and am glad I bought it instead of the other 3 or4
popular brands, The carts here in Canada cost me 10.00 for black and 15.00
for color, or a combo pack for 23.00, MUCH much cheaper than the others.
 The print results are as good as  Canon or Epson in my view, I also have a
canon and HP which have been put in the attic since I purchased the Kodak.
You might like to go to a dealer and have them do a print of one of your
photos , this will then tell you firsthand if it meets your expectations.
As for myself I do recommend this printer, Would I buy again? YES.

regards, Rene
Click to expand...

Hey René:

Which Canon do you have in the attic?
Is it fully operational?
How much would you want for it?

Phineas
 
Ignore the following post from measekite!. the Diarrhea that falls from
his
mouth is not to be believed. as He does not even own a Kodak and just
blathers away to make himself feel important.

Yes, I have a Kodak 5300 and am glad I bought it instead of the other 3 or
4
popular brands, The carts here in Canada cost me 10.00 for black and 15.00
for color, or a combo pack for 23.00, MUCH much cheaper than the others.
The print results are as good as Canon or Epson in my view, I also have a
canon and HP which have been put in the attic since I purchased the Kodak.
You might like to go to a dealer and have them do a print of one of your
photos , this will then tell you firsthand if it meets your expectations.
As for myself I do recommend this printer, Would I buy again? YES.

regards, Rene
Click to expand...

Hey René:

Which Canon do you have in the attic?
Is it fully operational?
How much would you want for it?

Phineas
It's an older model S900 and the print head is shot, not worth fixing.

Regards, Rene
 
Rene said:
Hey René:

Which Canon do you have in the attic?
Is it fully operational?
How much would you want for it?

Phineas
It's an older model S900 and the print head is shot, not worth fixing.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is IMO. It uses the BCI-6 cartridges which are non-chipped
and compatible carts can be bought for as little as $1.59 each. The
money saved on buying ONE set of compatible cartridges over EOM will pay
for a print head.
 
Michael said:
Actually, it is IMO. It uses the BCI-6 cartridges which are
non-chipped and compatible carts
Click to expand...
They are not compatible. The ink is no match for Canon ink in quality
or durability.
 
Back
Top