NZFF

Hey guys, considering buying a printer for my wife and was after some advice as to which one to get.
It will be used for photo printing and general small document printing at home. Photo copying option would be handy but not completely required.
I am after a good quality printer and I am willing to spend what it takes.

Thanks ahead of time for any advice/suggestions

Well, I've got my eyes on an MG5250 or a MG6150
Fast, great printing (photos and doc's (going by reviews)), auto duplex, wi-fi (that's my biggest requirement), scanner, copier

It's quite big but all multifunction's are

Haven't got it yet but like you said...Christmas is coming

Some they may be handy maybe also get one with a built in scanner , if have a HP2600/2700 , it has abilty to print from cameras and even has a fax option . The unit is 2005 , sure its been upgraded and further refined .

Venge wrote:

QUOTE (Venge @ Dec 20 2010, 10:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey guys, considering buying a printer for my wife and was after some advice as to which one to get.
It will be used for photo printing and general small document printing at home. Photo copying option would be handy but not completely required.
I am after a good quality printer and I am willing to spend what it takes.

Thanks ahead of time for any advice/suggestions

I have been using a Canon Pixma I4600 for the past couple of years.
I use it for printing FSX shots on A4 quality photo paper and the results are outstanding..........
This model will have for sure been superseded, however a couple of points to remember
1) the quality from a multi printer will not be as good as a 'printer only''.
2) If it were me, I would be looking for an individual print cartridge' brand e. g. mine has 5 ink cartridges
so you only replace the one that has run out - some brands (HP) have a multicolour cartridge and regardless
of which colour runs out, you have to replace the complete unit every time.
3) I wouldn't go past Canon if I was looking.
Good hunting

I'd agree that multi's generally aren't as good quality as dedicated - but that would depend on how choosey your wife is with quality. For myself, I'd never buy a home photo printer, as they are satanically expensive to run. If you want a great quality pic, even up to A4, it would be cheaper to email the file to a print bureau & get them to whack it out as a photo.

But if you must waste money at home definitely get a 5-cart printer of any brand - preferably 6-cart. The light cyan and light yellow (or light cyan - depends on the system) is the real key to awesome colour reproduction.

Don't give in to the temptation to use 3rd-party inks: all the manufacturers spend massive amounts of money refining their inks for their printers - the "cheaters" don't. Also, if you use non-branded ink, you immediately invalidate your warranty.

Be prepared to spend serious amounts of cash if you print full-page colour on a regular basis...

EDIT: I also strongly recommend straight-paper feeds where possible / practical: means less jams and heavier paper can be used (as in, card-weight - some will do 300gsm!)

It would only be a minor amount of photos being printed, just some every now and again for her scrap-booking or whatever.
I do not think my wife is going to be too overly critical about quality, however I personally am sick of cheap s**t printers that are nigh on disposable because they cr@p out so fast.
The first printer drawn to my attention by a random sales guy was a epson artisan 725
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Pro...session.new=Yes

Seems to be reasonable quality, but i really have no idea.

I've used Epson for a few years now, but have also owned Canon & Brother. I've never owned an HP due to their very high ink costs. Out of the 3 types I've owned, I think I prefer the Epsons overall as best "bang for buck" and reasonable quality. I haven't bothered with photo printing for a while now, but every now and again I have the need for a full colour hi-res printout, and I find my Epson CX6900F (which is over 3 year's old now) produces a very acceptable printout. I spent 9 years in advertising as a Production Manager, so I have a very fussy eye for detail.

All that being said, I've always found that HP's give the best long-term hi-quality printing: mainly, I believe, because each time one replaces the ink one also replaces the head. Therefore, ANY brand of printer where one either is forced to or has the option of replacing the head will give far better long-term results that the "cheapos". I think that the "cheapos" of today - Lexmark withstanding - are alot better than those of even 2 or 3 year's ago.

I did find that the printers I've owned that DIDN'T have straight-paper paths were always a pain for jams, even on 80gsm standard paper. I've had only 1 or 2 jams on my CX6900 - it is a straight-paper feeder.

My advice is to buy mid-range ($200ish) and figure the cost per page (black & colour - unless you have a laser in which case only the colour is really relevant). In research I've done over the last 3 years, Epson has beat all others on CPP - non-changeable print head notwithstanding. It's quite easy to figure cost: for colour, take price of CMYK carts, divide by pages listed per cart (often 240), there's your CPP. Note that the page count is at 5% coverage - typically, a full A4 page of text with a line across the top and a few bold headings. A full A4 page colour photo printout costs 95% more than that...

Just bought the MG5250 of PlayTech for $189

I'll let you know how it goes.

Nick

We have 2 multifunction printers an RX610 and a CX8300. Both are probably superseded now. The CX8300 produces much better photo's yet the RX610 was more expensive.
Both have 5 plus cartriges. I find that the EPSOM printers give all round value for money and a very good quality with reasonable print speeds. Also simple to use.
However if you have more than 1 computer I would suggest a Wifi option, if available in your price range, as it can be a pain having to wake the master computer up to print from the "slaved" computer.

Have you considered a colour laser ? Sooooo much cheaper to run than an inkjet ... I bought a Canon a couple of years ago, it is still on the original toner cartridges. When it finally does run out of toner it will be replaced by another Canon colour laser - they subsidise the printers to try and hook you into buying their expensive toner, which means it's cheaper to buy a new printer than new cartridges. Oops, but it does mean I've always got a fairly modern printer

I'd never buy another inkjet.

Gary

A thought about colour lasers: they most certainly are cheaper & faster to run than an inkjet - I have one myself. A big problem: they suck at photos. Some of the very expensive colour lasers (say, $5k +) are marginally ok, but anything below that is muddy and indistinct. Not surprising: inkjets use round droplets, lasers use square "blocks"...

We have a canon pixma mp550 scans, copys and has slots for memory cards. Great for us as home users, we don't print many photos nice and easy to use

Thanks for all the info guys!

Hi,

Not sure if you are sorted yet, however I have just got the Epson PX720WD and it does just about everything with superb results. In the UK it was on offer at our local tesco for £149.99. Not sure in NZ but worth a look.
Regards
Stewart

For the record, i ended up with a Epson Artisan 725. Wife is very happy with it so I did well