Color Inkjet vs Lazer

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

How does the quality of a color inkjet printer compare to the
inexpensive color laser printers on the market today? For example the Konica
Minolta or the Samsung Lasers versus the Epson or Lexmark color inkjets.
9 answers Last reply
More about color inkjet lazer
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Budget colour laser printers can produce very good results, even with
    photo images, but the dots will be visible if you look closely. Look
    at the the print quality of magazines, and whether something like that
    would suit your needs. One of the benefits of laser printers is the
    consistant results on any paper type, even cheap recycled paper. They
    also offer lower running costs, no clogged print heads, faster printing
    - no slowing down if you put the quality settings on maximum, and
    robust waterproof prints. It's even possible to purchase low-cost
    generic toner cartridges for some models, and refill powder can be
    located for most printers if costs are an issue.

    You'd need an inkjet printer if you wanted true photographic printing,
    but just about everything else can be done better by a laser printer.

    I've spent the past few months researching various printers, and I can
    offer the following comments. Konica's printers have very noticable
    grain (dots) in images, which looks like newspaper print. Samsung's
    printers produce fairly dull, matte results, but Xerox re-sells those
    printers under their brand name after tweaking the colours. I could
    recommend a closer look at Epson's AcuLaser C1100, but it's sold
    everywhere except North America.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Ed Majden wrote:
    > How does the quality of a color inkjet printer compare to the
    > inexpensive color laser printers on the market today? For example the Konica
    > Minolta or the Samsung Lasers versus the Epson or Lexmark color inkjets.

    To evaluate print quality, it is best to print *your own* sample
    images, and compare them. If you rely on vendor samples, you'll be
    comparing "birds and bicycles" (or whatever each vendor chooses for a
    colorful image.

    Regarding printer longevity (another aspect of quality), I think "you
    get what you pay for" applies here. You can read about a variety of
    problems that people have with their printers on this group. With some
    filtering, you should be able to get a fair picture of the relative
    quality of various printers.

    For myself, I had the budget for a more expensive printer. I compared
    several tabloid lasers, using my own images. I ended up purchasing a
    Xerox Phaser. I'm happy with it. Most people that see the prints
    remark on the picture quality.

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

    If I understand correctly, you're saying that some of the Xerox laser
    printers are re-badged Samsung printers. Can you give some examples?

    Thanks,
    Paul
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Laser printers are ok for Text and graphics, for photo's a inkjet as
    already advised is much better

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

    When Samsung launched the CLP-500, I believe it was their first colour
    laser. Xerox made some adjustments and sold it as the Phaser 6100, but
    I think that the toners are universal. There are a couple of other
    models in that line which may have a similar background.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Sat, 28 May 2005 00:40:24 GMT, Ed Majden <epmajden@shaw.ca> wrote:

    > How does the quality of a color inkjet printer compare to the
    >inexpensive color laser printers on the market today? For example the Konica
    >Minolta or the Samsung Lasers versus the Epson or Lexmark color inkjets.

    For what purpose?

    --

    Hecate - The Real One
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
    you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    ClubCX wrote:

    >Budget colour laser printers can produce very good results, even with
    >photo images, but the dots will be visible if you look closely. Look
    >at the the print quality of magazines, and whether something like that
    >would suit your needs. One of the benefits of laser printers is the
    >consistant results on any paper type, even cheap recycled paper. They
    >also offer lower running costs, no clogged print heads, faster printing
    >- no slowing down if you put the quality settings on maximum, and
    >robust waterproof prints. It's even possible to purchase low-cost
    >generic toner cartridges for some models, and refill powder can be
    >located for most printers if costs are an issue.
    >
    >

    That sounds like fun.

    >You'd need an inkjet printer if you wanted true photographic printing,
    >but just about everything else can be done better by a laser printer.
    >
    >I've spent the past few months researching various printers, and I can
    >offer the following comments. Konica's printers have very noticable
    >grain (dots) in images, which looks like newspaper print. Samsung's
    >printers produce fairly dull, matte results, but Xerox re-sells those
    >printers under their brand name after tweaking the colours. I could
    >recommend a closer look at Epson's AcuLaser C1100, but it's sold
    >everywhere except North America.
    >
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In message <1117247385.497067.168460@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    gnewsremove1@uugw.hifn.com writes
    >If I understand correctly, you're saying that some of the Xerox laser
    >printers are re-badged Samsung printers. Can you give some examples?

    I always assumed it was the other way round. The cheap samsung 550 or
    some number like that is more or less a cheap xerox machine.


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

    On 27 May 2005 19:05:02 -0700, "ClubCX" <tom@botservice.net> wrote:

    >Budget colour laser printers can produce very good results, even with
    >photo images, but the dots will be visible if you look closely. Look
    >at the the print quality of magazines, and whether something like that
    >would suit your needs. One of the benefits of laser printers is the
    >consistant results on any paper type, even cheap recycled paper. They
    >also offer lower running costs, no clogged print heads, faster printing
    >- no slowing down if you put the quality settings on maximum, and
    >robust waterproof prints. It's even possible to purchase low-cost
    >generic toner cartridges for some models, and refill powder can be
    >located for most printers if costs are an issue.
    >
    >You'd need an inkjet printer if you wanted true photographic printing,
    >but just about everything else can be done better by a laser printer.
    >
    >I've spent the past few months researching various printers, and I can
    >offer the following comments. Konica's printers have very noticable
    >grain (dots) in images, which looks like newspaper print. Samsung's
    >printers produce fairly dull, matte results, but Xerox re-sells those
    >printers under their brand name after tweaking the colours. I could
    >recommend a closer look at Epson's AcuLaser C1100, but it's sold
    >everywhere except North America.

    Epson Aculaser C1100 is a rebadged Fuji-Xerox F-X Docuprint C525A,
    they are the actual maker of the engine. The Fuji-Xerox itself is
    apparently only available in Japan, the Far East and Australia. With
    very slight modifications the same engine is available in the US &
    Europe as the Dell cn3000 and cn3100 (the 3100 is a much better deal
    since it uses full-filled toner carts).
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Inkjet Peripherals