The HP printers with printheads built into the cartridge have the advantage that you can throw away the printhead when it gets clogged. They cost more to run, but since you're not printing much do you really care?
Sticky tape :-)
cheers, clive
Not true, the Xerox Phaser solid ink printers are good, but you need to be printing around a ream a week to make them worthwhile.
The ink is cheap, the print quality excellent, the printers cost between
300 and 1100 pounds depending on the options chosen. They need to left switched on 24/7 and if you don't print several 10s of pages a day the ink can change colour in the printhead (because it is a solid wax ink melted down in the printhead and being kept hot or a long time changes the colour.) That's where they get expensive, they use a lot of electricity.OTOH the colour output is excellent and they manage 30ppm duplex.
For photographic output the HP printers with Vivera ink produce prints that are better than anything I've had from a mini-lab, but output on plain paper is disappointing. The Epsons we have all perform well, and unlike others experience, the colour output is stunning especially on art quality matt paper and the colour doesn't fade which is a bonus compared to Canon. OTOH you do need to use the printer from time to time.
HP Deskjet 1280 - £170 ish HP Photosmart Pro B8350 - £250 ish (photo quality) Epson Stylus Photo R2400 - £500 ish (photo quality)
If you produce a lot of prints and you want to match them to press output then there's the Lyson continuous print system for the Epson R2400. There's also the PermaJet Eco-Flo system which does the same job, it's just that I trust Lyson more than I trust PermaJet.
If you're an amateur, the HPs are great, if you're producing professional work then the Epson is essential.
If you run a nozzle check about once a week, it will keep the nozzles clear, without using a lot of ink. Buying a good compatible ink cartridge will keep the cost down.
Impossible to say without knowing what sort of printing you want to do. Six or more colour inkjets do photos particularly well and IMO are better than having them printed professionally, which is usually done in four colours. However, no inkjet is going to like being left unused for long periods. If all you want is monochrome, or business quality colour, a laser is hard to beat. Samsung is doing lots of special offers as it tries to erode HP's lead in the domestic market.
If you want an inkjet, I suggest you compare the prices of consumables for different makes, as that can also be an important facto in deciding what to buy. I recommend
I won't be able to follow up on any replies to this, as the Christmas break is about the only time I manage to get away from computers and mine will stay firmly switched off for the next ten days. Happy Christmas and a good New Year everybody.
Colin Bignell
Plenty are capable of decent colour. You won't get the glossy photo quality results of the good inkjets, but if all you need is business style colour then its not really a problem. Results are also light fast, which is not usually the case if you have an inkjet that used dye based inks.
Running costs are typically far lower than inkjet... even the Baby Samsung personal laser I mentioned above where you would expect consumable costs to be higher works out about 2p/page mono, 8p/page colour, which is not that far of the costs of running large volume serious colour lasers like the big Ricoh CL7200.
You get what you pay for. Most higher spec lasers are single pass these days. An Oki C8600CDTN A3 colour laser will knock out full colour A4 at
26ppm and A3 at 15ppm.nightjar into the cartridge, while the latter have it built into the printer. Canon
The Pixma range of Canon machines is quite nice in that respect. The print head is a modular replaceable item in the printer in the same way the inks are. Which gives the cheapness of the Epson approach, and the financially viable ability to replace the head HP style should you need to. They are also pretty impressive on top end photo work.
I threw my Epson "photo quality" printer out of the window. It flew about as well as it printed. And the Epson "Easyprint" software was a festering heap of shit.
I have an HP LJ5M for everyday printing (25 quid from eBay) and I get my photos printed at Jessops.
Set a scheduled task at least once/twice a week for the printer to print a document in colour.
Umm no, they're not. None of them can do a decent black and they certainly can't print a colour ramp.
Ink jets are not the only printers.
Indeed, they are expensive.
Only in the middle of a run of single sided prints of the same image, you can't get anywhere near 26/15ppm on a typical document. That's partly because no matter what you pay the printers are essentially four pass, whether this is done explicitly as in the case of the cheaper HP laser printers or is achieved by four passes onto the drum before printing.
I went down that way and then found the inconvenience of not being able to print out all sorts of other things that require colour - maps being the one at the top of my list. That's why I went back to an inkjet - an HP continuous ink type that costs next to nothing to run and is totally reliable (at least it will be till after I've written this ) !!
Rob
No, do a test print first. This exercises every nozzle a colour print out might not. That is what I do with my elderly Epson 750.
Failing that, change the printer to a Canon with 6 separate ink carts. Change the ink cart and you have new nozzles again. And you can refill them, unlike the Epson.
Dave
The Boots/dongle idea I like. I upload photos to Kodak or whoever but, being able to print the odd thing in a hurry, would be useful.
I don't miss the inky fingers and the printer rage I used to suffer. I also get the pleasure of looking at other peoples photos and thinking, "Christ, what IS wrong with your skin tones?"
Agreed. Solution was a LasertJet 4M+ for all the mono printing (the bulk). And an A3 colours PostScript inkjet for the colour stuff. (actually there's a little LaserJet 5L tucked in a corner downstairs too; that cost nothing except a new pickup roller).
Not on any decent laser printer for the past five years anyway, do try to keep up dear.
When you changed the pick up roller did you run into any problems with it not passing the paper on to the next roller?
I changed the pick up on my 5 l using a kit I purchased the the USA and the paper stops just short of the next roller now.
Dave
I could never recall how to call up the Test routine and doubted that my son would remember or be bothered!
It's exactly how lasers still work, if I were you I'd learn about the technology I use rather than spout bollocks.
No, it feeds fine. I actually got the roller and the three separation pads; bought them directly from a place in the UK, just quoted the part numbers.
Well black printed with black toner in a colour laser is as good as black printed with black toner in a mono printer. Good ones can produce pretty decent blacks.
Colour ramp performance varies from nothing special to ok. However in many cases that is not important. It all comes down to the type of printing you are doing.
No, true, but for the market we are discussing dye sub or wax transfer are not common choices. Obviously if you are proofing colour repro work then your needs are different.
The CL7000 seems to get remarkably close when fed on a 100Mb lan. Some of our clients are estate agents, and they routinely do print runs that will consist of a set of property details for a client. Multiple sheets, with half page photograph and text details etc. The Ricohs can knock those out at full print engine speed without any difficulty. Duplex is pretty close to half single sided speed per page.
or single pass on four drums...
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.