Forum home› Road cycling forum› The bottom bracket

A printer for home use - any recommendations?

Alain QuayAlain Quay Posts: 534
edited July 2011 in The bottom bracket
My Epson PX700w has died and good riddance.

Any recommendations for a minimal use, robust, home printer -
not for business use?

Thanks.

Posts

  • MattC59MattC59 Posts: 5,408
    Go and have a look in Staples, they've got a good selection and their prices look pretty good too.
    Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
  • dilemnadilemna Posts: 2,187
    edited July 2011
    What's your budget for the printer and replacement ink cartridges when they run out?

    I would recommend the Canon Pixma MP640 typically about £150 which you can get for about £115 on Amazon with free delivery (it's well packed inside) if you are canny which strangely enough is what I did. It's an excellent superb quality photoprinter, scanner and copier. It has won quite a few tests in camera magazines. Dead easy to use and set up. Replacement cartridges not tooo exponseeve although like everything could be cheaper but they seem to last long enough but again could last longer. It has 5 inks - x2 blacks and CMY.

    Do not what ever you do buy a Lexmark - censored . I had one. I threw it out the bedroom window as it was so bad. The window was open. The next printer I bought was an Epson C44 which drank ink and was censored . Glad it packed up after 11 months. The Canon MP640 is about 14 months old now and still going strong.
    Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
    Think how stupid the average person is.......
    half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.
  • alfabluealfablue Posts: 8,497
    If you only want to print in B&W a laser printer will be far cheaper to run. I have a Samsung, cost £50 (eBuyer) and toner is £20 about once every 18 months.

    If you want a photo printer I would still suggest a laser B&W in addition as it would soon pay for itself in the ink you save for non photo printing.
  • dilemnadilemna Posts: 2,187
    alfablue wrote:
    If you only want to print in B&W a laser printer will be far cheaper to run. I have a Samsung, cost £50 (eBuyer) and toner is £20 about once every 18 months.

    If you want a photo printer I would still suggest a laser B&W in addition as it would soon pay for itself in the ink you save for non photo printing.

    Seems like a good idea but then if space is at a premium on your desk it might get a bit crowded ...........
    Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
    Think how stupid the average person is.......
    half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.
  • verylonglegsverylonglegs Posts: 3,754
    alfablue wrote:
    If you only want to print in B&W a laser printer will be far cheaper to run. I have a Samsung, cost £50 (eBuyer) and toner is £20 about once every 18 months.

    If you want a photo printer I would still suggest a laser B&W in addition as it would soon pay for itself in the ink you save for non photo printing.

    agreed, I have a b&w Canon laser, cost me around £50 a couple of years ago, I never printed photo's anyway so it was best solution for me. All depends if the op wants to print photos then...
  • chiarkchiark Posts: 335
    Thirded :)

    I bought a Samsung ML-2010 from CCL clearance for £30 2 years ago. After 2 1/2 reams of paper (about 1250 pages) It's still on its original toner - just - and I have a spare toner from ebay waiting in the wings that was £15 or so...

    For photo printing, we've got a canon pixma ip4500 which is great but not cheap to run.
    Synapse Alloy 105 / Rock Lobster Tig Team Sl
  • thinbothinbo Posts: 93
    Can't go wrong with Canon pixma range for pictures/photos and colour printing.
    CUBE Agree GTC Pro '10
    Giant Defy 2 '09
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 7,674
    We have a Canon pixma AIO at home, it's a few years old and works faultlessly, running costs aren't great because you can't get cheapo cartridges - but I've used enough cheapo cartridges over the years to know that they're not that good anyway.
    Its main use tends to be as a home copier, invaluable.
  • jermasjermas Posts: 484
    I would avoid the cheaper Hewlett Packard models. I've owned two and hated both. Kodak are supposed to be good.
Sign In or Register to comment.