Which printer to buy?

[shannyk]

I have seen threads for more expensive printers, but my price range is smaller and I would appreciate any help.
I am not a professional, just an amatuer, but would like to print nice photos for myself, family and friends. I am looking for a printer in the $300 range, and also need a new scanner. Should I get a combo such as Hp Photosmart 2610, or the guy at Best Buy suggested Epson RX600, or any suggestions? Or is it better to buy a printer and scanner seperately?
Thanks in advance.

[robertwgross]

For printers, I think you will find that a majority of the photographers here use an inkjet printer from either Canon or Epson. Those two brands are very popular. If you are not trying to find a big printer (stay at 8.5x11 inches or smaller) then they are quite affordable. However, do not consider only the purchase price of the printer. Consider the cost of consumables (paper and ink cartridges). In many cases, the cheapest printers to purchase will end up with the most expensive operational cost.

For scanners, you might want to refine your search to either a film scanner or a flatbed scanner, depending on what you are trying to do.

---Bob Gross---

[kb244]

By the way as an Epson rep I can tell you right now the RX600 is discontinued, if yer seriously considering it, wait a another few weeks for the RX620 to replace it. By the way HP Photosmart , is a No-No , not only is the brand-name consumerables it uses quite expensive, its not even water resistant, unless of course you shove some canon glossy into the HP printer hehehe. But I would still prefer Canon or Epson. For two that are not multifunctions, looking at either the Canon Pixma iP6000D , or the Epson R320. Course higher up on the ladder you get into something like Pixma iP8500 vs R800, then the Canon i9900 vs Epson 2200 (though I think a Epson R1800 comming soon to replace that).

[Avalonthas]

Do not buy a all-in-one or multi purpose machine. Buy a seperate printer and seperate scanner. Combos are generally cheap and do not perform optimally compared to a standalone device.

Also buy a printer with atleast 6 ink tanks. Your printer, no matter what type is gonna guzzle up ink once you get into lab like quality. The more ink tanks you have, generally the cheap it costs for ink, as you only replace the tank that is empty. In the long term, you will save alot compared to a 2 tank or 4 tank system.

I always recommend the Canon i9900 as it offers 8 tanks and it is extremely exonomical on the ink, although the printer is out of ur budget (600 canadian). Ink for me only costs 15 bucks with tax per tank and they have quite a good longevity and you mostly replace 3 main tanks (for me anyways) which are the two photo colors such as photo magenta, and then black.

So long term you will save with such a printer. Before switching to full digital, i used to have a Lexmark X75 or some printer like that. It gave some pretty good quality but ink ran out fast as it was a 2 tank system, and usually it was only one of the 3 colors that ran out. The cost to replace the color and black cartridge is 79 bucks plus tax canadian so its really expensive. With that cash i can buy 6 ink tanks for my i9900. I also get more photos for the same $$$ value of ink on the i9900. Im not sure if any other canon printers off similar ink system, but its a good investment so you might wanna save up a bit more. I am currently saving up for the i9900 successor as i have already earned profit off it to cover the expense and so im not really losing any cash when i print as it pays off.

I would go for the printer before the scanner.

[chucksberg]

"By the way HP Photosmart , is a No-No , not only is the brand-name consumerables it uses quite expensive, its not even water resistant"

Who cares, I usually buy brand name inks and papers, whether for my Canon or HP. How many pictures get wet? Are any of the papers waterproof? Just print another.

I do think the Canon edges out the HP for color......but I've never thrown out and HP printer that wasn't working good as new. Can't say the same for Canon. My mother still uses the old HP Deskjet 500. Bought it for her many years ago when she had a 386 pc.

[down_shift13]

i have the canon i960, i got it brand new from comp usa. $175 less $50 mail in rebate. its a six color individual tank printer. i just use it for family photos and it works great for the price.

[kb244]

"By the way HP Photosmart , is a No-No , not only is the brand-name consumerables it uses quite expensive, its not even water resistant"

Who cares, I usually buy brand name inks and papers, whether for my Canon or HP. How many pictures get wet? Are any of the papers waterproof? Just print another.

I do think the Canon edges out the HP for color......but I've never thrown out and HP printer that wasn't working good as new. Can't say the same for Canon. My mother still uses the old HP Deskjet 500. Bought it for her many years ago when she had a 386 pc.


Well the point is not that any picture would get wet, but rather if the HP runs so easily when some specks of water gets on it, what would happen over a long period of time if the images got the occasional light humidity?

[the7ferret]

I got the pixima 6000d it works GREAT and fast too. Lovely colors, however at first I wasn't impressed with the photos cause banding appeared but when i tried different paper (dunnno why) it worked. Use canon paper (best results)or if you use other paper make sure to set the printer to the appropriate paper.

It was Kodak premium paper that I had used at first.

[chucksberg]

kb244 Thats a good question. I don't know. Most of the test I see are for UV fading. I guess they feel humidity is a non issue. I have noticed that most printer reviews seem to compare the printer under test to the Canon and Epson line. Especially the canon.

[KevC]

I'd say r200. Look at my thread here!

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58993

You can get an awesome CIS system for cheap! That's where they make the money, INK!

[shannyk]

thanks so much for all the info.