Photo Printers

[Lt.Dan]

I'm trying to buy a color printer for use at home to print off a small number of photos and some general light printing.  My primary interest is in high-quality photo printing but decent b&w printing and scanner would be a plus.

So far Canon seems like they offer what I need but I'd like to compare some other products too.  I'm looking at the Canon iP4300 or 5300, and Canon MP600.

Has anyone had any experience with these printers or with similar spec'd printers?


PS It's not just game reviews that suck - printer reviews often read like rewritten product brochures.

[schild]

Epson RX580. Buy it. Hook it up. Love it.

We've had it for about 6 months, it's everything you say you want.

[Merusk]

My last 2 printers have both been Canons, and I really liked them.  (530i and I can't recall what the latest is..) Their best feature was the individually-replacable inkwells, IMO.  When I had a unified cart, it was always running out of one color while the others could have kept going.  (Usually Blue.)

   I've only printed a few photos with both, but I found them to be suitable for what I needed, which was just hanging them up in the house.  I was only using the standard inkwells, too, rather than the special 'photo inkwell' whose exact purpose I don't know.  I think the ink simply dries faster so you don't smear it on the glossy paper.

[Lantyssa]

Epson RX580. Buy it. Hook it up. Love it.

We've had it for about 6 months, it's everything you say you want.

Are Epsons more durable these days?  Several years ago they gave us endless grief by falling apart rather quickly.

[schild]

Epsons are absolutely fine in terms of durability. I mean, I don't understand what you mean exactly by durable. They just sit there for a few years. (I've Never had a printer just break on me, so, yea, not quite sure how to answer the question).

[Lantyssa]

These did "just break".  I don't know how, no one calls me while they're working, only after its dead and they need it Right This Instant For the Submission Due Yesterday.

They were really cheaply made though, that much I could tell by inspection.

[Merusk]

All printers can "just break" when the ink dries out in them.  If they were calling you with 'omg my stuff is due tomorrowz!!!1!!" I'd suspect lack of use as the primary culprit.

[Lantyssa]

It's been a while, so I don't remember the two cases I'm talking about exactly.  It wasn't the ink though.

[HaemishM]

Many years ago, over 7 at least, Epsons were notorious for being total pieces of shit. Cheap and liable to just stop working correctly or at all at the drop of a hat.

I'm to understand they've gotten much better.

[shiznitz]

Epsons seem the be the choice of photo enthusiasts here at work. The three serious photographers were unanimous. That said, Kodak recently announced they are entering the business. Their goal is to offer a much cheaper ink solution, but a higher priced printer. They are targeting heavy users specifically. I don't think any product is available yet, though.

[Hanzii]

Yup!
The high end Epsons are the choice of serious photo entusiasts (and professionals who do their own printing).
Midrange I'd say look at the features on offer and pick anything by Canon, Epson and HP. When Canon launched their Pixma range I'd say the were leading on every front, but HP and Epson has been cathing up and surpassing them. I had my PIXMA IP4000R (one of the first wireless printers offered) and loved it's speed, it's good looking photos, it's cd/dvd-printing (which apparently isn't offered on the US models due to some patent issue) and it's wireless capabilities.
Now I want a multifunction printer (my scanner is shit) and will be picking up my HP Photosmart C7180.

Don't go below midrange - even HP, Canon and Epson can still produce rather crappy printers to compete with the cheap Lexmark and Brother offerings (which actually are getting quite good when above midrange - just not for photoprinting!)

[eldaec]

I started down this road for photos, but then tried a professional internet printing company and never looked back.

I use these guys...

http://www.peak-imaging.co.uk/

...they are little more expense than the average but the output is incredible (and uk based of course, so they'll sting you for an extra £3.50 on each order for international shipping)

If you look around it seems you can find far more reviews of printing companies than of physical printers.

[Big Gulp]

I bought the HP D5160 for about $80 in December, and it's really great.  Photo printing, and just as importantly (for me anyway) it prints directly onto discs, instead of going  the convoluted label route.  Finally I can dress up Netflixed/Blockbuster Onlined DVD collection the way it was meant to be dressed up.

Oh, and since it's an HP printer you can use those syringe refill kits just fine.  Suck on it, Epson.

[Hanzii]

Just don't use those unoriginal inks for photos you actually want to keep.

Printing companies are fine, and the one mentioned seems finer than most catering to the pros, but printing yourself give you more control/power over any corrections/enhancements made and you get the near instant gratification of seeing your print right after you've finished working on it.
And as long as we're talking colour photography the inkjet printers (new ones) using the right ink and the right paper now lasts longer than professional silver halide prints.

[Trippy]

And as long as we're talking colour photography the inkjet printers (new ones) using the right ink and the right paper now lasts longer than professional silver halide prints.

In theory.