Good inexpensive color laser or solid ink printer?

[Guest]

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

I am basically at the end of my rope with inkjets, in the last six years I
have gone through 4 different printers, two of which were in the last 18
months. The printers have been HP, Canon, Epson and Lexmark. None of
which I have been satisfied with.

All four cost too much on ink, the ink cartridges would die out if they
didn't need printing all the the time. This was especially bad on the
color inks. My last two printers have both stopped printing and new ink
cartridges didn't fix it.

I currently have an ALPS printer for high quality color, but it is no
longer manufactured and I need something to replace it.

I have been looking at color laser printers, to replace both printers. The
costs have fallen drastically, but the toner costs is still a little high,
if it dropped to around $150-$200 for all four toner cartridges the costs
would be even better but I can live with the $300 range for toner
cartridges.

The models I have seen at various computer stores are HP, Minolta, Lexmark
and Samsung.

Which printer would be good for mostly B&W printing with the occasional
color printing, mostly for family vacation photos and possibly a few small
mailings to my family on christmas (i.e. christmas cards).

Also are any Laser printers good at printing on Photo type paper, or
similar.

The price range I am willing to go up to is at most $800, but would prefer
around $400.

 

[Guest]

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

"rl27" <rl27@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95F9C21E58004rl27hotmailcom@65.24.7.50...
>
> Also are any Laser printers good at printing on Photo type paper, or
> similar.

Lasers won't print you photos. (in reasonable quality) You need an
inkjet, dye sub, or any of those dedicated photo printers using some
other technology.

> The price range I am willing to go up to is at most $800, but would prefer
> around $400.

 

[coup]

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

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:55:49 GMT, rl27 <rl27@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I am basically at the end of my rope with inkjets, in the last six years I
>have gone through 4 different printers, two of which were in the last 18
>months. The printers have been HP, Canon, Epson and Lexmark. None of
>which I have been satisfied with.
>

Been there, done that.

You will get several answers like the one you already have from inkjet
bigots who insist that ONLY inkjet or dyesub printers can produce the
sort of ultra saturated high gloss reproduction they prefer and insist
NOTHING else is of decent quality... many of us disagree...

Having just gone thru the same decision tree you can find a long post
by me made about a week ago under Dell 3100cn... basically:

On sale (and they run 20% or 30% off sales regularly) this printer
(which is a rebadged Fuji-Xerox, btw) can be had for under $400 (I got
mine for 384 with free shipping on a 30% off sale). You get Full 4k
page toner carts for black and all 3 colors, 5ppm in color, 16 ppm in
b&w, a 250 sheet tray and a 150 sheet multifunction tray. A complete
set of replacement toners runs $280, black alone is $65. The thing is
a tank: 17' x17" x 22" high and weighs 72 lbs. It's not as noisy as
most 4 pass printers and one thing is that it 'wakes up" from sleep
mode VERY quickly so can easily be left in that mode all the time with
little penalty.

U will also see the 3000cn...bad buy....removes Postscript, the Paper
tray and comes with Starter toners (2k Black, 1k color) which are a
joke forcing the purchase of a new toner pack immediately.. also they
sell a $220 pack for the 3000 which has 4k Black and 2k color toners
as a 'replacement'.. STILL only half filling the color carts....

You NEVER use inkjet papers with a laser as they have coatings to
control absorbtion of liquid ink that will foul a laser drum. Laser
toner fuses to the surface and laser papers are designed to be ultra
smooth to provide a more uniform surface. The results are more akin to
matte finish photos... with highest quality papers many of us find the
results more than acceptable for photos.

I'm quite pleased with the Dell so far

 

[Guest]

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

"Coup" <coup@sumwhere.net> wrote in message
news:2esp0113r9q3j6rhffv6m99sl2g2icica8@4ax.com...
>
> You will get several answers like the one you already have from inkjet
> bigots who insist that ONLY inkjet or dyesub printers can produce the
> sort of ultra saturated high gloss reproduction they prefer and insist
> NOTHING else is of decent quality... many of us disagree...

I may look like an inkjet bigot to you; however, that doesn't change
the fact that most of the photo printing is done with printers other
than lasers, and not without some good reason.

 

[Guest]

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

> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:55:49 GMT, rl27 <rl27@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I am basically at the end of my rope with inkjets, in the last six
>>years I have gone through 4 different printers, two of which were in
>>the last 18 months. The printers have been HP, Canon, Epson and
>>Lexmark. None of which I have been satisfied with.
>>
>
> Been there, done that.
>
> You will get several answers like the one you already have from inkjet
> bigots who insist that ONLY inkjet or dyesub printers can produce the
> sort of ultra saturated high gloss reproduction they prefer and insist
> NOTHING else is of decent quality... many of us disagree...
>
> Having just gone thru the same decision tree you can find a long post
> by me made about a week ago under Dell 3100cn... basically:

Thanks for your reply.

I looked at the Dell. One that looks promising is the Konica Minolta
2340DL is actually billed as printing photos. I haven't seen an in depth
review for it. It does have ethernet capability and works under Linux,
which are both selling points.

The OKI C5150N also looks good, the sample printout on Glossy paper looked
better than my current photo inkjet, and almost matched the ALPS I have.
Then again it is a test print, which can be misleading.

Also do you happend to know which Fuji-Xerox printer the Dell actually is.
I may want to purchase the Fuji one instead. I prefer not to buy rebadged
printers, but if the Dell is around the same cost I might go for it, as
much as I dislike Dell.


> smooth to provide a more uniform surface. The results are more akin to
> matte finish photos... with highest quality papers many of us find the
> results more than acceptable for photos.
>

The sample photos from several laser printers definitely looked good.

 

[Guest]

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

I have the "photorealistic" 9600x600 KonicaMinolta 2350en. It does
produce good photo output on the recommended papers and is a very good
general purpose printer especially after adding the automatic duplexer
and more memory. However, printing on 8.5x11 paper all the time and
having to cut photos is (for me) a pain, plus yes this printer is very
noisy due to the 4 color rotating mechanism - but not too bad if not
used much and/or is in another room. I have some 8.5x11 framed
photo-art from this printer that looks great, and yes it is great to
use for proofs. There are a lot of color management options, and
saturation, etc, can be adjusted.

I have since added a Canon i9900 for photos which is true photo
quality and handles all types of paper sizes (I print on 5x7, 8.5x11
and 13x19) - plus it, so far, has not had any nozzle clogging problems
even after not using it for over 4 weeks ... in 6 months I have not
even needed to do any type of nozzle cleaning before printing photos.

I had also looked into solid ink printers, but I found reports that if
you don't continuously print with them the ink will tend to burn, turn
dark, and need to be cleaned out and replaced.

 

[Guest]

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

As good as color laser printers are getting, and they are improving all
the time, they still don't have the same control of the toners a inkjet
printers do of their inks.

Laser printers certainly have a lot going for them, speed - especially
when making multiple copies, print durability, (most color toners ar
very archival) cost or paper and colorants, etc. But they still don't
yet have the ability to quite meet better inkjet quality, and there is
still a problem with surface finish. Often more toner means glossier
surface, while paper surface is matte, making a differential. Or using
gloss paper in the laser, the toner is still too matte. It's a bit of a
catch 22. Inkjets can provide either glossy, luster or matte surfaces
that have much less surface variation as a result of the ink.

I think both technologies have their place.

Art

John Doe wrote:

> "Coup" <coup@sumwhere.net> wrote in message
> news:2esp0113r9q3j6rhffv6m99sl2g2icica8@4ax.com...
>
>>You will get several answers like the one you already have from inkjet
>>bigots who insist that ONLY inkjet or dyesub printers can produce the
>>sort of ultra saturated high gloss reproduction they prefer and insist
>>NOTHING else is of decent quality... many of us disagree...
>
>
> I may look like an inkjet bigot to you; however, that doesn't change
> the fact that most of the photo printing is done with printers other
> than lasers, and not without some good reason.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"rl27" <rl27@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95FB7B48BCB6rl27hotmailcom@65.24.7.50...
> > "rl27" <rl27@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns95F9C21E58004rl27hotmailcom@65.24.7.50...
> >>
> >> Also are any Laser printers good at printing on Photo type paper, or
> >> similar.
> >
> > Lasers won't print you photos. (in reasonable quality) You need an
> > inkjet, dye sub, or any of those dedicated photo printers using some
> > other technology.
>
> I don't care about perfect quality,

I haven't seen the best lasers (w.r.t. photo printing) but what I've
seen so far shows that other printers do better photos. But if
a laser is good enough for you, then you need one.

Because of the very different printing technologies, I think lasers
are a lot less likely to specialize the way some inkjets and dyesubs
did, amd their main selling point will still be relatively high volume,
good and inexpensive printing. Even if they could be considered
the best for black text or business graphics, I don't see them
overtaking photo inkjets using 7 - 8 inks anytime soon.

>.The sample pictures I have seen from the three laser printers
> I am considering, look better those in the current model of my
> last two ink jets (Lexmark and Epson). Of course I would
> expect the quality of a sample print to be biased to make the
> printer look good.

Printing technology advances very fast, so even a couple of years
of difference is enough to bring in significant advancements, the
only question is whether you have use for those, or not.

 

[Guest]

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

"Markeau" <please_reply@news.group> wrote in message
news:SMCdnTcSco7NuJPfRVn-pQ@giganews.com...
>I have the "photorealistic" 9600x600 KonicaMinolta 2350en. It does produce
>good photo output on the recommended papers and is a very good general
>purpose printer especially after adding the automatic duplexer and more
>memory. However, printing on 8.5x11 paper all the time and having to cut
>photos is (for me) a pain, plus yes this printer is very noisy due to the 4
>color rotating mechanism - but not too bad if not used much and/or is in
>another room. I have some 8.5x11 framed photo-art from this printer that
>looks great, and yes it is great to use for proofs. There are a lot of
>color management options, and saturation, etc, can be adjusted.
>
> I have since added a Canon i9900 for photos which is true photo quality
> and handles all types of paper sizes (I print on 5x7, 8.5x11 and 13x19) -
> plus it, so far, has not had any nozzle clogging problems even after not
> using it for over 4 weeks ... in 6 months I have not even needed to do any
> type of nozzle cleaning before printing photos.
>
> I had also looked into solid ink printers, but I found reports that if you
> don't continuously print with them the ink will tend to burn, turn dark,
> and need to be cleaned out and replaced.

Hi,
I'm looking for a good color laser as well. I just had a look at the Minolta
and the specs seem pretty good but I almost fainted when I checked out the
price of toners (375 Euro). A set of toners that can print 1500 pages costs
more or less same as a set of DELL toners which can print 4000 sheets.
That's what I call a daylight robbery. Is the print quality really that good
to justify the price difference. Has anyone compared the Dell and the
KonicaMinota 2350en? If yes what's the difference between the color prints.
Thanks for your help.
Regards,
Raphael

 

[Guest]

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

> Hi,
> I'm looking for a good color laser as well. I just had a look at the
> Minolta and the specs seem pretty good but I almost fainted when I
> checked out the price of toners (375 Euro). A set of toners that can
> print 1500 pages costs more or less same as a set of DELL toners which
> can print 4000 sheets. That's what I call a daylight robbery. Is the
> print quality really that good to justify the price difference. Has
> anyone compared the Dell and the KonicaMinota 2350en? If yes what's
> the difference between the color prints. Thanks for your help.
> Regards,
> Raphael
>
>
>

Thats the one thing that's got me thinking about delaying the purchase at
least a few months. I want to see if the printer companies wake up and
offer smaller color lasers, with 1500-2000 page capacities and halve or
quarter the price of the toners.

Cutting the toner cartridge size would definitely reduce some of the size,
but not all. The other thing is the weight. I definitely don't want to
have to lug 60 to 80 lbs up or down a flight of stairs.

 

[Guest]

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

"rl27" <rl27@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95FDC557071D7rl27hotmailcom@65.24.7.50...
>> Hi,
>> I'm looking for a good color laser as well. I just had a look at the
>> Minolta and the specs seem pretty good but I almost fainted when I
>> checked out the price of toners (375 Euro). A set of toners that can
>> print 1500 pages costs more or less same as a set of DELL toners which
>> can print 4000 sheets. That's what I call a daylight robbery. Is the
>> print quality really that good to justify the price difference. Has
>> anyone compared the Dell and the KonicaMinota 2350en? If yes what's
>> the difference between the color prints. Thanks for your help.
>> Regards,
>> Raphael
>>
>>
>>
>
> Thats the one thing that's got me thinking about delaying the purchase at
> least a few months. I want to see if the printer companies wake up and
> offer smaller color lasers, with 1500-2000 page capacities and halve or
> quarter the price of the toners.
>
> Cutting the toner cartridge size would definitely reduce some of the size,
> but not all. The other thing is the weight. I definitely don't want to
> have to lug 60 to 80 lbs up or down a flight of stairs.
>

Yeah, I hear you. I'm also thinking about buying one, but am kind of
skeptical about the quality, size and weight. The good news is that the
delivery guys will bring it to you, but I heard that they're really noisy
and their dimensions are HUGE!!!!! The toners in most of the cases are just
too expensive for what they deliver. The only printer on my mind at this
point it the dell color laser. The toners are good for 4000 pages and
they're cheaper than the ones from KonicaMinolta (which last only for 1500).
Dell also allows you to use non authorized toners what's really nice and can
cut down your printing costs drastically!. Unfortunately I live in Poland
now and they don't have the printers in their showroom so I have to wait for
them to send me some printouts from some other country and unfortunately it
seems that they're taking their sweet time (almost 2 weeks now or maybe they
just need to manufacture the paper from scratch ). Anyways I will give
you an update on quality of the printouts once I'll get them.

Raphael