Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Recommendations - color laser?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 4:22:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

This question must have been asked before but sorry, couldn't find an answer
so here goes:

I'm looking for a good sub 1.000$ printer, either laser or solid ink. The
printer will primarily be used for printing design previews for clients and
proofing copies of magazine pages, i.e. lots of photos and graphics. So what
is important is overall print quality. It will probably only be used to
print a few pages a day, so speed and capacity to print high volumes is less
important.

Does anybody have good ideas?

On www.printershowcase.com the RICOH CL2000 gets great reviews but on
www.pcmag.com the print quality is judged only average. I've also looked
into the XEROX PHASER 8400 solid ink, but it seems to be great only for
graphics - not for photos. Does anybody have experience with these, or other
recommendations???

Thanks a lot,
Anders
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 5:28:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Anders O wrote:
> This question must have been asked before but sorry, couldn't find an
> answer so here goes:
>
> I'm looking for a good sub 1.000$ printer, either laser or solid ink.
> The printer will primarily be used for printing design previews for
> clients and proofing copies of magazine pages, i.e. lots of photos
> and graphics. So what is important is overall print quality. It will
> probably only be used to print a few pages a day, so speed and
> capacity to print high volumes is less important.
>
> Does anybody have good ideas?
>
> On www.printershowcase.com the RICOH CL2000 gets great reviews but on
> www.pcmag.com the print quality is judged only average. I've also
> looked into the XEROX PHASER 8400 solid ink, but it seems to be great
> only for graphics - not for photos. Does anybody have experience with
> these, or other recommendations???
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Anders

How about inkjet like Canon ip4000 ? Fast, cheap to operate, very easy to
refill, superb photo quality. Overall best value for money.
A bit less durable photos due to dye ink, but if you want more durable ones,
then cost of printer is quite greater (look at Epson R800, which uses
pigmented inks).
Maybe i'm wrong, but if this solid ink tehcnology would be so great, quality
and usefull, by now most big producers of printers would use it instead of
liquid ink...also how long you must wait until printer ready? and i bet
power cosumption is quite big for heaters of ink...if you plan to have it
ready all day, sooner or later heaters will dye, causing expensive
repair...etc...etc...
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 6:54:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Thanks. It is my experience that laser printers are far superior when it
comes to quality of graphics and text. Inkjet just doesn't have that
professional "umf" - except when printing only photographs.
Not sure about the solid ink either. Apparently, graphics should be
fantastic in terms of saturated, glossy colours, but photo-printing should
be mediocre and, yes, problems could arise due to the need for heating, a
period of idleness, re-heating etc. etc.

So I guess it's a fairly cheap, professional, all-round graphics/photographs
laser I'm looking for...



"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> skrev i en meddelelse
news:bYoNd.8892$F6.1662609@news.siol.net...
> Anders O wrote:
> > This question must have been asked before but sorry, couldn't find an
> > answer so here goes:
> >
> > I'm looking for a good sub 1.000$ printer, either laser or solid ink.
> > The printer will primarily be used for printing design previews for
> > clients and proofing copies of magazine pages, i.e. lots of photos
> > and graphics. So what is important is overall print quality. It will
> > probably only be used to print a few pages a day, so speed and
> > capacity to print high volumes is less important.
> >
> > Does anybody have good ideas?
> >
> > On www.printershowcase.com the RICOH CL2000 gets great reviews but on
> > www.pcmag.com the print quality is judged only average. I've also
> > looked into the XEROX PHASER 8400 solid ink, but it seems to be great
> > only for graphics - not for photos. Does anybody have experience with
> > these, or other recommendations???
> >
> > Thanks a lot,
> > Anders
>
> How about inkjet like Canon ip4000 ? Fast, cheap to operate, very easy to
> refill, superb photo quality. Overall best value for money.
> A bit less durable photos due to dye ink, but if you want more durable
ones,
> then cost of printer is quite greater (look at Epson R800, which uses
> pigmented inks).
> Maybe i'm wrong, but if this solid ink tehcnology would be so great,
quality
> and usefull, by now most big producers of printers would use it instead of
> liquid ink...also how long you must wait until printer ready? and i bet
> power cosumption is quite big for heaters of ink...if you plan to have it
> ready all day, sooner or later heaters will dye, causing expensive
> repair...etc...etc...
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 7:59:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Anders O wrote:
> Thanks. It is my experience that laser printers are far superior when
> it comes to quality of graphics and text. Inkjet just doesn't have
> that professional "umf" - except when printing only photographs.
> Not sure about the solid ink either. Apparently, graphics should be
> fantastic in terms of saturated, glossy colours, but photo-printing
> should be mediocre and, yes, problems could arise due to the need for
> heating, a period of idleness, re-heating etc. etc.
>
> So I guess it's a fairly cheap, professional, all-round
> graphics/photographs laser I'm looking for...
>

hm...i guess color lasers are better in term of waterproof, printing
"decent" on normal cheap paper etc. in short, ideal for commercial stuff,
not needed for high photo quality. Inkjets are however, like you said, far
superior at photos. Here lasers can't reach even up to inkjet's knees...
At the end, it's you who must decide. However, color lasers are still
expensive to buy and expensive to operate (expensive toner).

>
>
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:bYoNd.8892$F6.1662609@news.siol.net...
>> Anders O wrote:
>>> This question must have been asked before but sorry, couldn't find
>>> an answer so here goes:
>>>
>>> I'm looking for a good sub 1.000$ printer, either laser or solid
>>> ink. The printer will primarily be used for printing design
>>> previews for clients and proofing copies of magazine pages, i.e.
>>> lots of photos and graphics. So what is important is overall print
>>> quality. It will probably only be used to print a few pages a day,
>>> so speed and capacity to print high volumes is less important.
>>>
>>> Does anybody have good ideas?
>>>
>>> On www.printershowcase.com the RICOH CL2000 gets great reviews but
>>> on www.pcmag.com the print quality is judged only average. I've also
>>> looked into the XEROX PHASER 8400 solid ink, but it seems to be
>>> great only for graphics - not for photos. Does anybody have
>>> experience with these, or other recommendations???
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot,
>>> Anders
>>
>> How about inkjet like Canon ip4000 ? Fast, cheap to operate, very
>> easy to refill, superb photo quality. Overall best value for money.
>> A bit less durable photos due to dye ink, but if you want more
>> durable ones, then cost of printer is quite greater (look at Epson
>> R800, which uses pigmented inks).
>> Maybe i'm wrong, but if this solid ink tehcnology would be so great,
>> quality and usefull, by now most big producers of printers would use
>> it instead of liquid ink...also how long you must wait until printer
>> ready? and i bet power cosumption is quite big for heaters of
>> ink...if you plan to have it ready all day, sooner or later heaters
>> will dye, causing expensive repair...etc...etc...
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 1:15:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Check carefully the price of consumables re running cost.
o Most low-end colour lasers are almost loss-leaders
o The money is made on expensive consumables

A colour laser is C/Y/M/K toner cartridges, often a complete
set of consumables can be near the price of the printer itself.

So it might be more economic to:
o B&W laser
o Colour inkjet

This is particularly true if you ever need A3 printing, an A3
colour inkjet is cheap compared to even a B&W laser printer.

Worth working out price-per-page of each option.
o You may want to use compatibles on the inkjet
---- which can have a substantial impact on running costs
o Toners can be refilled, but to a lesser degree
---- 4 cartridges re C/Y/M/K is a hefty replacement cost

Speed may also be an issue - however on quality I think
a good inkjet will win, albeit with the correct paper used.

Colour lasers are more aimed at bulk colour, than proofing.
--
Dorothy Bradbury
www.dorothybradbury.co.uk for quiet Panaflo fans
February 7, 2005 1:15:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

>So it might be more economic to:
>o B&W laser

This is what I bought.... a B&W laser all in one from
samsung

The Samsung SCX-41000
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 3:20:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Dorothy,

Thanks. I'm not too afraid of running costs. I know laser CMYK cartridges
are expensive but they will last a long time - much longer than ink jet
cartridges. Since I won't be printing high volumes regularly, it shouldn't
be much of an issue anyway.

I already have a great B+W laser and a somewhat dated A3 ink jet (HP 1100C).
I've never been happy with the ink jet prints and have often found myself at
the print shop to get colour laser prints. Would never use an ink jet print
for a client or my portfolio.

Seems to me laser prints is the only option if you want professional
quality. They're crisper and colour surfaces are more even and saturated (at
least for graphics). A4 will do most of the time so I'll be happy to
occasionally pop by the print shop whenever I need A3.
!