good printer?
- Thread starter AAPhotog
- Start date
Define 'good quality' for photos, how many documents are you printing and how often and how much are you willing to spend: Fast printing and high photo quality are often not compatible and its the old story: Cost, speed, quality - pick 2 from 3.
I recently bought a Canon ip8750 and am very happy with it for sizes up to A3+. I previously had a Epson R300 (up to A4) and when it broke I decided to give Canon a go.
I recently bought a Canon ip8750 and am very happy with it for sizes up to A3+. I previously had a Epson R300 (up to A4) and when it broke I decided to give Canon a go.
Upvote
0
Photo quality printers are not suitable for printing regular every day black and white prints. I have no idea what you mean by sizable prints? 24 X 36 in? 44 X 96 in, or maybe 8 X 11 in?.
I have 5 printers, one is a Epson 3880, one is a oldie but good Epson 7600 that still runs on Windows 10 64 bit, a newer HP monochrome laser printer, and two aging Xerox laser color printers. Only the xerox will produce sort of photo quality prints, they are water proof and don't fade, so they are good for photo booklets like advertising brochures.
I have 5 printers, one is a Epson 3880, one is a oldie but good Epson 7600 that still runs on Windows 10 64 bit, a newer HP monochrome laser printer, and two aging Xerox laser color printers. Only the xerox will produce sort of photo quality prints, they are water proof and don't fade, so they are good for photo booklets like advertising brochures.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Agree. Photo quality means photo quality inks, which are more expensive, and photo paper management (straighter paths for one or a few sheets, and no duplex). Then a lot depends on the level of acceptable photo quality.
After the last attempt to buy a printer for both tasks some years ago (a six inks HP printer), I gave up, and got a Canon Pixma Pro for photos, and an HP color laserjet for documents (A4). I would have preferred another Canon, but I was space constrained and the only ethernet+color+duplex I could found in a relatively small size was the HP. I'm quite happy with this solution.
Upvote
0
Here's my recommendation... take it or leave it.
Unless you print A LOT of photos, go with a lab, or your local corner convenience store that processes photos for your photo needs and get a document printer... probably a small multi-function 10ppm laser or a cheap 4-color inkjet.
If you have to print a lot of photos... get a Pro-100 from someone who just bought one on rebate with a lens/body. And then get a cheap $40 document printer or a cheap $100 laser.
Unless you print A LOT of photos, go with a lab, or your local corner convenience store that processes photos for your photo needs and get a document printer... probably a small multi-function 10ppm laser or a cheap 4-color inkjet.
If you have to print a lot of photos... get a Pro-100 from someone who just bought one on rebate with a lens/body. And then get a cheap $40 document printer or a cheap $100 laser.
Upvote
0
For good regular prints, get a laser.
For photo-quality prints, get a photo-quality ink-jet. I have an Epson 3880 (up to 17x20") and am quite happy with it. With that photo printer, also get a display/monitor calibration spider. Unless your display is reasonable accurate, you cannot get consistent prints. Read up on color management.
For photo-quality prints, get a photo-quality ink-jet. I have an Epson 3880 (up to 17x20") and am quite happy with it. With that photo printer, also get a display/monitor calibration spider. Unless your display is reasonable accurate, you cannot get consistent prints. Read up on color management.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 7828
Guest
I was wondering the same thing and after much research and pondering, I went with the Canon Pro 10. Being completely new to (self-)printing, there was a small learning curve involved to get the best output (and I still feel there is a little trial and error involved for certain shots)...the end result is excellent though. First 12x18 was a wonder to hold! Definitely can recommend it (or the Pro 100 if print longevity isn't as critical to you as it was to me).
It would have been nice to get a 17" Pro 1000 to do 16x24s, but the ownership cost was increasing exponentially to the point where it became unjustifiable...especially when the vast majority of my desired prints are 4x6 and 8x12 - and the reviews that were critical of its ink usage on smaller prints.
It would have been nice to get a 17" Pro 1000 to do 16x24s, but the ownership cost was increasing exponentially to the point where it became unjustifiable...especially when the vast majority of my desired prints are 4x6 and 8x12 - and the reviews that were critical of its ink usage on smaller prints.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
