Four 4 x 6 Inch Photo Printers Head-to-Head
We look at four printers from Kodak, Epson, Samsung and Canon that make 4 x 6 inch photos. Each printer is ranked to simplify your buying decision.
What the heck is this crap? A review is supposed to show how the items performed. How do we know if the writer has a bias towards one particular item?
Just when I was starting to get annoyed at the typo's and picture errors in articles, we now get a review without any review. Does anyone actually work at Tom's Hardware anymore? Where is Tom?
I have to agree with above posters about the quality of this 'review.' It basically said that all of these printers are 'good' but where re the comparisons.
I'll start with my biggest gripe about TH in general, no prices. Just putting MSRP, or a price range would help. Are these $200 printers or $600 printers. And with printers, it is especially important to quote an exact, or at least estimated, 'price per page.' Dye-Sub is easy, ribbons will print a predetermined number of sheets, inkjet is not so easy and you certainly shouldn't quote the manufacturer.
What about quality, I've always felt Dye-Sub looks better but I haven't checked out the latest crop of inkjet photos. And what about durability, will the inks smear or run if I set the photo next to a fizzy glass of coke? How will the printer function after sitting in a dusty office for a couple months. Will the inks dry up? Will the Dye-Sub have dust artifacts?
I could probably learn more about these products walking into Office Max and viewing the sample prints than I did from this review. And I'm sure there are more unanswered questions than the ones I posed above.
- the Hun
As someone who used to be a merchandiser for Kodak, I also thought this was a very underdone "review". I knew more about all of those printers already than was listed in this article and I havent worked for Kodak in almost 12 months now.
I know the Kodak printer uses a laminate style sealing proccess, its been so long I forget the name, as a merchandiser we used to put the prints in water for hours w/o any damage. They sent us a display once with a print hit with grape juice, bleach and coffee. Was pretty nice, altho bulky display.
I'm also going to have to vote this article down. Once again Tomshardware put out a very bad printer review. How do you guys do such an awesome job with hardware, and no better than consumer reports with printers?!?
First off, I would never recommend a Dye-Sub of any kind for a serious photo user, even Kodak. Take a look at this chart:
Even the new Dye based Epson's get twice the life expectancy of ANY dyesub. The older pigment models (i.e., the one you reviewed) do even better. And the HP only gets good ratings on its premium plus type papers, which means with HP you have to choose between water resistence or longevity.
Another question, why are you reviewing the old models? We have some reviews forthcoming for the Yonah Processors? No? Than why review old Printers?
In commercial printing you can get costs down as low as .10/each depending on quantity produced. Your home printers are going to be much higher and less quality.
Inkjet printers have improved considerably in the last few years but you will always have weaknesses in the ink to water or scuffing on your lower end home style printers.
http://www.odeecompany.com - Digital Printing Company - Dallas