Need a Photo Printer

[snidy1]

Is there a photo printer out there that will produce quality pictures that won't fade in a month? Under $400

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Most of the current inks are quite good. The quality of prints is more dependant on the quality of paper. Glossy finish photo paper tends to last longer than matte finish.

 

[Zepper]

I can recommend the Canon iP4300 or iP5200 now that clone ink tanks are finally availabale from swiftink.com (Official ink supplier to the Stars here on the AT forums ). The OEM ink when used with Canon paper is supposed to have good longevity (100 years if you can believe that - I don't and I'd never live to test the theory in any case) and you won't have the clogging problem as with an Epson printer which also give good longevity but the prints look funny due to all the inks being pigmented. Most of us here use clone inks and say (roughly): "if she fades, print 'er agin"... .

If you want a true, six-color photo printer that puts text secondary, then you can get the iP6600 for less than $100. around the big box stores right now - or you can choose its replacement, the iP6700 which recently hit the shelves.

.bh.

 

[T9D]

In my research before buying a new photo printer I found that Epson far at lasts any other brand. They have a special ink that binds with the paper. It's rated for like 80 - 200 years or something like that. When most others start at like 20 years to go bad. I wanted to make sure my photos at lasted me. othewise whats the point.

I got the epson r1800. It's a little more than what you want to spend but it does huge prints. It's really fast and almost silent. And does everything you could want. I highly recomend it.

 

[Tullphan]

Originally posted by: Zepper
I can recommend the Canon iP4300 or iP5200 now that clone ink tanks are finally availabale from swiftink.com (Official ink supplier to the Stars here on the AT forums ). The OEM ink when used with Canon paper is supposed to have good longevity (100 years if you can believe that - I don't and I'd never live to test the theory in any case) and you won't have the clogging problem as with an Epson printer which also give good longevity but the prints look funny due to all the inks being pigmented. Most of us here use clone inks and say (roughly): "if she fades, print 'er agin"... .

If you want a true, six-color photo printer that puts text secondary, then you can get the iP6600 for less than $100. around the big box stores right now - or you can choose its replacement, the iP6700 which recently hit the shelves.

.bh.

Does the iP6600 have the capability of using the clone tanks as well?

 

[Zepper]

Yes, the iP6600 uses six of the 8 series tanks, while the 4300 and 5200 use four of the 8 series tanks and the larger pigmented black 5 series tank for better text. I would suggest checking the reviews around the web (and see what Consumer Reports had to say in their recent tech issue at your local library) before buying. Some that I've seen have the photo printing of the 6600 as no better than the 4200 or 4300. Wouldn't want you to be unhappy with your purchase.
. And the current clone tanks require you to transfer the "chips" from the OEM tanks onto the clones. Eventually they say that they will clone the chips as well - but it has already been over a year just to get the chipless clones - so don't hold your breath.

And the original iP6000D is still available for $100 shipped as well ( http://www.BeachCamera.com ) - no chips in the tanks! But the OEM ink doesn't have the longevity of the current inks. This original series of Pixma printers has the lowest TCO of any inkjet whether you compare OEM against OEM, clone against clone, or refilling yourself. This uses six of the 6-series tanks which have been around for years. And the iP8500 is also still available at under your price limit with eight of the 6 series tanks adding true red and true green to the normal five colors plus black. Even the i9900 eight-color, wide-carriage job can be found for under your price point.

Lots of photo printer reviews are available at http://www.steves-digicams.com, but be warned that he is an unabashed Canon fan and none of his printer reviews are all that critical. But he does give output examples from standardized source images and other things you don't see in a lot of other reviews.

.bh.

 

[HyunYu]

Take the "life span" of inks as advertised by the manufacturers with a grain of salt, much like the shiny, new, 3Gb/s ratings of SATA II or "look! 480Mbps with USB2!" In real life, you won't get that. The 20, 80, or 100 years they quote is based on a set of rather stringent lab-quality requirements: the print has to be unexposed to air (i.e., framed), in a range of temperature, not exposed to heat or direct sunlight, etc.

Someone posted upthread that glossy prints last longer than matte prints. That's interesting--it's the opposite of what I've heard about print longevity. I'll see if I can find some more conclusive data and post here.