I am getting into scanning and digital photography. I would like opinions on “relatively” inexpensive color inkjet printers. I have done a bit of looking at a Lexmark Z52 and an Epson 777 and 880. Something that can print “photo quality res” very well at a reasonable price is what we are looking for…preferebly USB.
Thanks for any advice
Between the two I would go with the Lexmark Z52. It is almost 100$ cheaper and has gotten better reviews from what I have seen. Here are some more reviews- cnet or PCmag.
Found this site as well, it seems to have more of what your looking for regarding photographic printing. Happy Shopping.
Just receved a Lexmark Z-12 as a christmas gift from my wife (Ayesha).
Seems to do a fairly good job for a low budget inkjet printer.
Printing photos on plain paper is not its strong point.
I have heard that Lexmark printers are the “winmodem” of inkjet printing,they will only work with Windows 9X/NT and Mac OS’s and not with linux etc.
It also seems to put more load on the cpu than other printers I have played with.
YMMV
Peace
LIONsob
bernse, you might want to take a look at http://www.epinions.com to get consumer reviews of various printers. After checking reviews in various places, I’ve decided to get an HP P1100 or an HP Photosmart 1218. Both reportedly offer excellent results on plain paper, and amazing results on inkjet photo paper.
I haven’t bothered to read reviews lately (that makes my input real useful, doesn’t it?). I’ve worked with computers for years, and as far as reliability and support goes, I would go with an HP or an Epson, in that order. Whatever you do, don’t buy a Canon!
I’ve got an original HP Photosmart and the results are amazing. And my older HP 380 printer/copier/scanner does a good job using the optional photo ink cartridge. I have read that the HP inks lasts longer over the years as opposed to other brands of printers (as in not fading as fast if you hang your prints on the wall) but I have not tested this myself. It is important to get good photo paper.
I don’t look at the price of the printer much anymore, I look at the price of ink. As a matter of fact, I ask the salesperson to show me how much it costs.
I [bold] HAD [/bold] a Eposn 880 printer. I had it for 13 days and on the 14th it broke.I took it back to Best Buy and they didn’t have any 880’s left so I took a 777. Comparing them both the print quality seems the same, the 777 is louder but not very loud and is slower than the 880 but not that slow. I am very pleased with it. For ink you are looking abount 22 for black 27 for color
While I haven’t for six months, I used to sell printers, and did so for a year.
Stay away from Lexmark. Shoddy machines. I’d get an HP. I never liked the way Epson handled ink. I prefer HP.
–Tim
Thanks for all the advice.
Manny, have you tried any 5x7s with the 777? Did they turn out…well I know that “photo perfect” is a tough one, but how about “photo quality?”
Thanks
My Canon bj4200 makes nice prints, has cheap ink carts, can be refilled if I want.
However one thing with photos from printers is that one drop of water & that ink runs.
Plus, real photo quality paper is expensive, so shop around.
Banding is the main concern of a printer. Banding is that annoying idiotic band of squares you can sort of see in a print. SuperPrint software gave me no banding, which was very nice.
Banding is a major concern & Consumer Reports should mention which ones have the most.
I wouldn’t rate the other qualities too much because they depend on what computer you use, what monitor, what photo software & what printing software & what you see on the screen at the store & how the image prints, have too much variance.
You might want to consider an HP. I’m well pleased with my new Hewlitt-Packard 970Cxi. It’s USB, and comes with a duplexing unit.
The HP photo software that comes with it is great because it will automatically fit your photo onto the paper you select, without your having to resize the image. I thought the output looked pretty good, especially where I had scanned some large, antique family photos. When I manually resized them to a smaller size, they lost detail. Where the HP software resized them, they looked great.