Which Cheap Photo Printer

[Furkin]

Hi all,
I wanted to print a couple of passport photo's the other day, & realised that whilst my Brother All-In-One does print some good quality stuff,,,, I’d like something better for the occasional photo.
Whilst purchase price is an issue,,,, I don't want this to be at the detriment to running costs.
Any suggestions please ?
thanks

[tinners]

am really happy with photos and normal printing on my Canon IP4000. Dont think you can get them now but the new IPs are also supposed to be good.

[Furkin]

Cheers Tinners,

Yep - still available,,,, & it does look a great machine. I also came across the 4300 whilst searching.

I really wanted a smaller photo only machine, as I have other printers for normal use (& am also considering a Minolta 2530 colour laser (unless there's something better for similar money ?!?!)

Is the Canon cheap to run ? How does it hold up if it dosn't get used a lot,,,, are the nozzles likely to dry etc ?

thanks for your help
(incy dentally, I know a pub called the Tinners - no relation are you ?)

furkin

[adam1701]

I have a nearly 10 year old epson colour stylus 440, and it prints damn good photos, especially on photo papar.

[merdat]

The trick with any printer is to use it , i.e. don't leave it idle for long periods. That canon 4000 is very good and also cheap to run . The 4200 and 4300 are a bit more costly to run. Also if you use canon high quality paper you will be amazed at the results you will get.

[lanceuppercut]

i had a epson r300, used "compatible" cartridges for ages saving lots in the process.

printer eventually died (everything had a pink tint to it!) and ended up getting a r220 to replace it.

as long as you dont get official ones, i think a set of 6 original carts for the 300 was a tiny bit cheaper than getting a new 220 with a set of carts.. go figure :/

[03peacheym]

Ive got a cannon ip 4300, its cheap to run and prints some damn good photo's. and only around £40

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Get an end of line HP 8450 - you should be able to get one for under 100quid. The problem with the Canon printers is that unless you have one which uses the lastest inks the prints they produce have poor fade resistance. I find that for a non-pigment ink printer the HP 8450 has excellent fade resistance.

The HP 8450 has superb print quality!!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The HP also has the nozzles integrated into the print catridges so there is no problem with them wearing out and I have found that I have had not had issues with them clogging up too.

[tinners]

Cheers Tinners,

Yep - still available,,,, & it does look a great machine. I also came across the 4300 whilst searching.

I really wanted a smaller photo only machine, as I have other printers for normal use (& am also considering a Minolta 2530 colour laser (unless there's something better for similar money ?!?!)

Is the Canon cheap to run ? How does it hold up if it dosn't get used a lot,,,, are the nozzles likely to dry etc ?

thanks for your help
(incy dentally, I know a pub called the Tinners - no relation are you ?)

furkin

We also have an epson picture mate for just photos. (Wife finds it easier as no need for PC !) Its good but expensive if you work out the cost per print.

Canon has been great even when not used for a week or two and ink is not massively dear and last a decent amount of time. Weve had the printer for 2+ trouble free years.

[Furkin]

Thanks guys,
As mentioned, I am also considering a Minolta 2530DL colour laser.
I have never used a cheap colour laser or dedicated photoprinter.
Do you reckon the 2530 will print a photo as good as an inkjet ?
If it will, then i'll just go for one of them to do everything.

cheers

[peterb]

I use an epson picturemate - gives great quality - but at about 25p/print! I also use a Kyocera colour laser which will print good quality photos (although kyocera claim it isn't photo quality) but not as good as the epson (which are pretty much indistinguishable from 'proper' photographs. An photo inkjet will pretty much beat a laser for phot quality any time but at a higher cost per print (although cheap colour lasers tend to have higher running costs than more expensive colour lasers - same is true of ink jets) Remember - we view a printer as a device for putting images on paper - manufacturers view them as devices for consuming very expensive ink which is where they make their profits, particularly on cheap machines - some of which must be barely sold at cost.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Thanks guys,
As mentioned, I am also considering a Minolta 2530DL colour laser.
I have never used a cheap colour laser or dedicated photoprinter.
Do you reckon the 2530 will print a photo as good as an inkjet ?
If it will, then i'll just go for one of them to do everything.

cheers

No!! Even £1000 colour lasers are not going to be as good as a higher level inkjet. The quality of the Epson R800 and HP 8450 is excellent and the prints can be compared to the quality of a decent highstreet lab. For prints smaller than A4 however they are not cheaper than a highstreet lab. I tend to use good quality paper and original inks though - OEM replacement inks are not that good as they tend to have very poor fade resistance generally. If you intend to use cheap ink and cheap photo paper get prints done at an online or highstreet lab though or get a dye sub printer like the previous poster as these will be better. You need to make sure also know how to calibrate your monitor otherwise you will no get the same colour/colour balance as you see on the screen too!!

However what printer you get will also depend on how much you value print quality and how much you are willing to spend to get decent print quality.

[Furkin]

Thanks guys,
it looks like I’ll be going for an Epson 265.
6 Separate inks. Good resolution. Prints to Disc media etc
At about £56 delivered,,,,, not too shabby.
I’ll probably put the 2530 on hold for a while then.
(I’m sending them a picture to print out & send to me, to give the ultimate quality examination)

You’ve all been a great help – thanks so far,,,,,