prints fron 10D

Hi everybody,
yeasterday, I printed some Macro pictures I took with my 10D and was very satisfied. but this was processed in a store where I used to develop my films before. my wonder is :
Do home printers (Epson or canon), let say arround $250 give any better shinier pictures?, equal quality ? worst?
(pictures were processed in London drugs store (canada who usually do nice job)
thanks in advance

Kh

I don't want to start a huge argument, but I really question the cost effectiveness of printing at home. I can go to the local costco and for $1.99 get a gorgeous 12x18 print in the same day. If I'm missing something let me know, but the print at the store is a dye sub print and not some a inkjet print. Considering the paper, ink, upkeep of the printer and print heads, and longevity of the print (fading), and your time... Not sure if there's a comparison.

I haven't tried printing at a lab yet, but I printed some A4's on my fathers Canon (not a model considered to be of professional quality), and the results where very good. But as said, the cost is high. Just the glossy paper I printed those on costs $3 a piece. Then comes the ink, and so on..

good points guys, jsut that I printed for $2 piece jsut 4x6 sizes, they maybe got me but the price as you mentionned is no ocmparison. plus, , first time I hear about "low longetivity" of ink printers
regards
Khalid

Another screw job for our friends to the north. I can go to ANY drugstore within 1 mile of my house & get 4X6 dye-sub prints for $.29, less with a cupon. Then there's Costco & Sam's with the latest Fuji tech.
Of course, I live in a major metro area, & our printers don't run on frozen fish!

Ouch! I have been buying glossy heavy weight (61 lb) Kodak paper (8 1/2 x 11) for less than $0.25US per sheet. Makes printing a bit more economical when the 100 sheet pack is less than $25US.