Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Color Inkjet vs Lazer

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 4:40:24 AM

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.

More about : color inkjet lazer

Anonymous
May 28, 2005 4:40:25 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 4:40:25 AM

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
Related resources
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 4:40:25 AM

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
May 28, 2005 4:40:25 AM

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
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 4:40:25 AM

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.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:29:19 AM

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...
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:42:57 AM

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.
>
>
>
May 28, 2005 12:31:35 PM

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
May 29, 2005 8:32:59 AM

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).
!