T
tss04
I'm looking for a good quality printer for digital photography printing
, could anyone suggest a good model ?
, could anyone suggest a good model ?
B
Bob Headrick
tss04 said:
What size prints do you want? Do you need to print from card slots or will it
always be connected to a computer? How many prints per month? Is portable
operation needed? Do you want to print B&W prints?
For 4x6" prints from a PC or card slots, and with a battery for portable
operation see the PhotoSmart 375 at:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/18972-236251-64340-15100-64340-427438.html
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF02a/18972-236251-64340.html has
various HP photo printers.
The high end Photosmart 8450 holds three cartridges, including one that has
light gray, gray and photo black for B&W prints in addition to the color and
photo cartridges.
For prints up to 13"x19" see the DeskJet 9600 series at:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF25a/18972-236251-236261-14438-f59-306780.html
Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP
H
Hecate
Canon or Epson unless you want to pay a fortune to HP for their
cartridges.
B
Bill
Hecate said:
HP isn't really any more expensive...I know since I've owned HP and
Canon models, and had lots of experience with Epson too. Costs are all
similar with competing models.
Regardless, forget about making photos at home with ANY printer - costs
are far too high compared to taking your digital photos to a photo lab.
If you want a printer for occasional printing at home, that's fine. But
if you intend to print all or most of your own photos, the only
economical method is to refill your cartridges or use cheap compatibles,
and use third-party photo paper. The printer companies make most of
their money from the consumables, like ink and paper products, so the
cost of consumables is very high.
Now if you still insist on doing it yourself, any of the big four brands
have lots of models that can print great photos. The difference is
mostly convenience features.
H
Hecate
I was waiting for someone to say that as I have a printer review from
the latest edition of PC Pro in front of me. The most expensive
cartridges were HP and the cost, in particular, of the HP 343
Tricolour cartridge at £2.71 per ml (£0.90 less then Chanel No5 - it
is however way cheaper than the most expensive liquid, Scorpion venom,
at £5532.18 per ml) was highlighted. Overall, for every single HP
printer tested, HP had the highest costs for ink by quite a margin.
Costs are not all similar and this is due not just to the price, but
also the volume of the ink cartridge. The HP 343, e.g., contains just
7ml of ink.
See, now would you like to give some figures for that? The same
survey (and they have been testing these printers for a year) showed
that if you were printing a 6x4, you are correct. For a 7x5 it's
50/50. But for anything larger than that, the inkjet is cheaper - even
the HP ones.
A
Arthur Entlich
I would agree if the person is printing 4 x 6" prints, since those are
sold quite inexpensively at most photo labs. However, larger formats, 5
x 7", 8 x 10" or larger, become economical rather quickly on your home
printer.
Art
sold quite inexpensively at most photo labs. However, larger formats, 5
x 7", 8 x 10" or larger, become economical rather quickly on your home
printer.
Art
B
Bill
Hecate said:
And I can point you to a review that has different results:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1682920,00.asp
Read the Editor's Choice picks and then the Performance Tests to see the
cost per page results.
I've read other reviews that have wildly divergent results, but this one
is the closest to my own experiences with the Canon i850 and HP Deskjet
6540 printers (using four colour inks as a common basis for comparison).
The HP 6540 does cost a bit more using six inks, but that's to be
expected since it also produces better photos than the four colour i850
or the current Pixma iP3000/4000 models.
Ink volume does not always reflect page yield.
Read up on the yields of various ink cartridges to get a better idea of
cost per page. The cost per ml that the PC Pro review states is largely
irrelevant and is only there for shock value.
Sure...prices are in Canadian funds and will vary based on volume
purchases, sale prices, etc. The prices below are based on typical
in-store costs.
Cost of a 4x6 sheet for Canon Pro is 35 cents plus Canon ink costs of
about $1.20-1.40 per print. Total cost averages $1.65.
Cost of a 5x7 sheet for Canon Pro is 60 cents plus Canon ink costs of
about $1.75-2.00 per print. Total cost averages $2.40.
Cost of a 8.5x11 sheet for Canon Pro is $1.60 plus Canon ink costs of
about $3.60-4.20 per print. Total cost averages $5.50.
Not around here. At several common stores I can get 4x6 prints at 29
cents in volume, 5x7 at 49 cents in volume, and 8x10 at $2.99 in volume.
Individual prices for typical 5x7 and 8x10 prints are $1.50 and $3.95
respectively.
So even at the most expensive store costs of 8x10 prints, it's still
cheaper than printing at home.
H
Hecate
Oh, I just included that for fun. They did proper printing tests, for
normal usage over a one year period. And the HPs were almost always
the most expensive, and were *never" anywhere near the cheapest per
page.
See above.
Not in the UK ;-)
H
Hecate
Yes, that's exactly what the test found.
B
Bill
Did you read the reviews and test info?
A big part of the reason I replaced my now-dead Canon i850 with an HP
6540 was due to three magazine reviews I read (two mags, one online)
that indicated cost per page was similar to the competition. Follow-up
research on the page yields from the HP cartridges produced similar
results. And finally a friend bought the HP 6540 and I was able to play
with it enough to get an idea of ink consumption.
The tired line from Canon supporters about it only costing $20 for a
single ink tank compared to HP's cost of $50 for a cartridge is
misleading at best. Comparisons need to be at least reasonable, not
completely lopsided.
But hey, if everyone agreed all the time, life would be boring.
That last sentence is contradictory.
If they're not always the most expensive, then the results HAD to be
less than at least one of the others and therefore near to the others as
well.
I can't find any PC Pro mags here and I can't find any current info from
online reviews. Can you post some relevant info of the tested models?
I'd like to see the test results and which models were compared and how.
A big part of the reason I replaced my now-dead Canon i850 with an HP
6540 was due to three magazine reviews I read (two mags, one online)
that indicated cost per page was similar to the competition. Follow-up
research on the page yields from the HP cartridges produced similar
results. And finally a friend bought the HP 6540 and I was able to play
with it enough to get an idea of ink consumption.
The tired line from Canon supporters about it only costing $20 for a
single ink tank compared to HP's cost of $50 for a cartridge is
misleading at best. Comparisons need to be at least reasonable, not
completely lopsided.
But hey, if everyone agreed all the time, life would be boring.
That last sentence is contradictory.
If they're not always the most expensive, then the results HAD to be
less than at least one of the others and therefore near to the others as
well.
I can't find any PC Pro mags here and I can't find any current info from
online reviews. Can you post some relevant info of the tested models?
I'd like to see the test results and which models were compared and how.