Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best_Colour_Laser_Printer_for_£400??

Tags:
  • Printers
  • Laser Printer
  • DPI
  • Peripherals
Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
July 23, 2004 11:17:40 AM

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

Anybody recommend a decent printer upto 400 GBP.

Priorities are cheap running costs. PPM not so important. Needs to
have a reasonable dpi (1200 or so?)

Recommendations Appreciated

More about : colour laser printer 400

Anonymous
July 24, 2004 5:49:03 AM

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

On 23 Jul 2004 07:17:40 -0700, j_le_bru@excite.com (JC) wrote:

>Anybody recommend a decent printer upto 400 GBP.
>
>Priorities are cheap running costs. PPM not so important. Needs to
>have a reasonable dpi (1200 or so?)
>
>Recommendations Appreciated

The Oki and the Samsung are about £450, the HP is about £550.
However, if priorities are cheap running costs you need a more
expensive printer <g> One of the Kyocera range. They are far cheaper
to run than any of the others and give good consistent results. Only
problem is that you have to pay about 3 times the amount you say.
Also, for the price, you're unlikely to get anything much above
600dpi, I think.

--

Hecate
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 1:50:41 PM

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

In message <gbc3g0hvb97id4dr6es18nund07vfg6k4m@4ax.com>, Hecate
<hecate@newsguy.com> writes
>On 23 Jul 2004 07:17:40 -0700, j_le_bru@excite.com (JC) wrote:
>
>>Anybody recommend a decent printer upto 400 GBP.
>>
>>Priorities are cheap running costs. PPM not so important. Needs to
>>have a reasonable dpi (1200 or so?)
>>
>>Recommendations Appreciated
>
>The Oki and the Samsung are about £450, the HP is about £550.
>However, if priorities are cheap running costs you need a more
>expensive printer <g> One of the Kyocera range. They are far cheaper
>to run than any of the others and give good consistent results. Only
>problem is that you have to pay about 3 times the amount you say.
>Also, for the price, you're unlikely to get anything much above
>600dpi, I think.

As above you need to consider not only the purchase price but the
running costs and generally you will get lower running costs with a
higher initial price. The Kyoceras do seem to have about the cheapest
running costs. I'm also quite partial to my Xerox solid ink jobby which
apart from dropping lumps of ink into it the only other replacement part
is every 40,000 pages, whereas the lower cost conventional colour lasers
are rather more often changing oil rollers, opc drum kits, waste toners
....

--
Timothy Lee http://www.wightproperty.com
tlatwightpropertydotcom
Related resources
Anonymous
July 24, 2004 4:23:23 PM

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

Timothy Lee wrote:

> In message <gbc3g0hvb97id4dr6es18nund07vfg6k4m@4ax.com>, Hecate
> <hecate@newsguy.com> writes
>
>> On 23 Jul 2004 07:17:40 -0700, j_le_bru@excite.com (JC) wrote:
>>
>>> Anybody recommend a decent printer upto 400 GBP.
>>>
>>> Priorities are cheap running costs. PPM not so important. Needs to
>>> have a reasonable dpi (1200 or so?)
>>>
>>> Recommendations Appreciated
>>
>>
>> The Oki and the Samsung are about £450, the HP is about £550.
>> However, if priorities are cheap running costs you need a more
>> expensive printer <g> One of the Kyocera range. They are far cheaper
>> to run than any of the others and give good consistent results. Only
>> problem is that you have to pay about 3 times the amount you say.
>> Also, for the price, you're unlikely to get anything much above
>> 600dpi, I think.
>
>
> As above you need to consider not only the purchase price but the
> running costs and generally you will get lower running costs with a
> higher initial price. The Kyoceras do seem to have about the cheapest
> running costs. I'm also quite partial to my Xerox solid ink jobby which
> apart from dropping lumps of ink into it the only other replacement part
> is every 40,000 pages, whereas the lower cost conventional colour lasers
> are rather more often changing oil rollers, opc drum kits, waste toners ...
>

I will second that ... but also add that it burns the cyan ink (unless
the newer models had the feature removed).

--

Please remove _removeme_ to reply.
Work: http://www.somis.dundee.ac.uk/
Hobby: http://www.egothor.org/
July 25, 2004 7:02:16 AM

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

how do you like the photo quality?

should i get it if i'm going to be printing ever so oftenn? i heard
that unless you use the phaser 8400 all the time, it wastes ink when
you start it up..

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 09:50:41 +0100, Timothy Lee <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

>In message <gbc3g0hvb97id4dr6es18nund07vfg6k4m@4ax.com>, Hecate
><hecate@newsguy.com> writes
>>On 23 Jul 2004 07:17:40 -0700, j_le_bru@excite.com (JC) wrote:
>>
>>>Anybody recommend a decent printer upto 400 GBP.
>>>
>>>Priorities are cheap running costs. PPM not so important. Needs to
>>>have a reasonable dpi (1200 or so?)
>>>
>>>Recommendations Appreciated
>>
>>The Oki and the Samsung are about £450, the HP is about £550.
>>However, if priorities are cheap running costs you need a more
>>expensive printer <g> One of the Kyocera range. They are far cheaper
>>to run than any of the others and give good consistent results. Only
>>problem is that you have to pay about 3 times the amount you say.
>>Also, for the price, you're unlikely to get anything much above
>>600dpi, I think.
>
>As above you need to consider not only the purchase price but the
>running costs and generally you will get lower running costs with a
>higher initial price. The Kyoceras do seem to have about the cheapest
>running costs. I'm also quite partial to my Xerox solid ink jobby which
>apart from dropping lumps of ink into it the only other replacement part
>is every 40,000 pages, whereas the lower cost conventional colour lasers
>are rather more often changing oil rollers, opc drum kits, waste toners
>...
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 1:12:40 PM

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

In message <410246af$0$7121$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Charles
Christacopoulos <c.k.christacopoulos_removeme_@dundee.ac.uk> writes
>Timothy Lee wrote:
>> As above you need to consider not only the purchase price but the
>>running costs and generally you will get lower running costs with a
>>higher initial price. The Kyoceras do seem to have about the cheapest
>>running costs. I'm also quite partial to my Xerox solid ink jobby
>>which apart from dropping lumps of ink into it the only other
>>replacement part is every 40,000 pages, whereas the lower cost
>>conventional colour lasers are rather more often changing oil
>>rollers, opc drum kits, waste toners ...
>I will second that ... but also add that it burns the cyan ink (unless
>the newer models had the feature removed).

I haven't had that with my 8200 but then it is used regularly for a
couple of thousand pages a month.

--
Timothy Lee http://www.wightproperty.com
tlatwightpropertydotcom
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 1:18:08 PM

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

In message <ccbb49cdf316c28cdc190daf302f5129@unlimited.ultrafeed.com>,
noob <noobie@nowhere.com> writes
>how do you like the photo quality?
>
>should i get it if i'm going to be printing ever so oftenn? i heard
>that unless you use the phaser 8400 all the time, it wastes ink when
>you start it up..

I much prefer the output from my 8200 then the previous QMS Magicolor 2.
It gives a nice glossy output, it needs to be left on all the time as it
uses some black charging itself up or something when turned on. Also, it
is difficult to laminate the output - if you have the laminator set to a
too high temperature it will remelt the ink and it runs.

--
Timothy Lee http://www.wightproperty.com
tlatwightpropertydotcom
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 1:48:32 PM

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

In message <t+sqd9BA5LBBFwhg@townvillage.eclipse.co.uk>, Timothy Lee
<me@privacy.net> writes
>
>I much prefer the output from my 8200 then the previous QMS Magicolor
then=than mea culpa

--
Timothy Lee http://www.wightproperty.com
tlatwightpropertydotcom
July 26, 2004 2:13:25 PM

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

Hmm... I will have to try to go see it myself. I'm leainng toward the
Lexmark C510 now, as th eSamsung CLP-550 has gotten across the board
bad reviews on photo quality. I heard the 8400 photo quality isn't
that great, but it might be better than the QMS Magicolor 2. Huum.
It's hard since I don't have them in front of me, and I'm relying on
the reviews at cnet.com.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 09:18:08 +0100, Timothy Lee <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

>In message <ccbb49cdf316c28cdc190daf302f5129@unlimited.ultrafeed.com>,
>noob <noobie@nowhere.com> writes
>>how do you like the photo quality?
>>
>>should i get it if i'm going to be printing ever so oftenn? i heard
>>that unless you use the phaser 8400 all the time, it wastes ink when
>>you start it up..
>
>I much prefer the output from my 8200 then the previous QMS Magicolor 2.
>It gives a nice glossy output, it needs to be left on all the time as it
>uses some black charging itself up or something when turned on. Also, it
>is difficult to laminate the output - if you have the laminator set to a
>too high temperature it will remelt the ink and it runs.
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 09:18:08 +0100, Timothy Lee <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
Anonymous
July 26, 2004 7:51:23 PM

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

In message <6af59f3f2908cbfc0491a1d791989c8d@unlimited.ultrafeed.com>,
noob <noobie@nowhere.com> writes
>Hmm... I will have to try to go see it myself. I'm leainng toward the
>Lexmark C510 now, as th eSamsung CLP-550 has gotten across the board
>bad reviews on photo quality. I heard the 8400 photo quality isn't
>that great, but it might be better than the QMS Magicolor 2. Huum.
>It's hard since I don't have them in front of me, and I'm relying on
>the reviews at cnet.com.

If you contact someone like printware.co.uk or lnl.co.uk they can
provide you with samples.

--
Timothy Lee http://www.wightproperty.com
tlatwightpropertydotcom
!