Hi,

Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find any
current info.

I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use it
for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.

Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a maybe
a few diagrams etc.
Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical as
the thing guzzles ink.
I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing business
or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200 pages/month.

So, my question, for the above use would I benefit from getting a laser
printer to use alongside the Epson inkjet? Obviously I'd have to buy the
laser, but they seem pretty cheap these days. Lower cost per page is the
aim of course. Is that still a feature of lasers?
What volume of printing do you think represents a break even point re.
printing with laser vs inkjet?

Note - I'm thinking B&W laser here - the odd colour page could still be
done on the inkjet.

Regarding lasers, are the modern ones any good. A company I worked for
years ago used HP Laserjets (IIIs and 4s) and they seemd very robust.
Are new ones similar or are the cheaper ones less solid?
How about the Konica-Minolta 1300W, as an example?

Any advice gratefully received.

Thanks, John

If you are satisfied with your Epson for Photos you might want to
consider the HP 1200 series. It is a businesss printer that can print
in full duplex.

If you are not happy with the photos then consider the Canon IP5000. It
is significantly better than the IP4000 for business documents,
marginally inferior in photos and also a little slower than the IP4000
but it will still produce great results. It has twin paper feeds and
prints full duplex. I have an IP4000 and use the bottom cassette feed
for paper and the top auto sheet feeder for photos.

I also have an HP990CSE and use the draft mode for printing out computer
programs. It is a fast draft (not as fast as the Canon) but the draft
quality rivals the standard quality on many printers.

John Fryatt wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find any
> current info.
>
> I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use
> it for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.
>
> Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
> volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
> specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a
> maybe a few diagrams etc.
> Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical
> as the thing guzzles ink.
> I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing business
> or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200 pages/month.
>
> So, my question, for the above use would I benefit from getting a
> laser printer to use alongside the Epson inkjet? Obviously I'd have to
> buy the laser, but they seem pretty cheap these days. Lower cost per
> page is the aim of course. Is that still a feature of lasers?
> What volume of printing do you think represents a break even point re.
> printing with laser vs inkjet?
>
> Note - I'm thinking B&W laser here - the odd colour page could still
> be done on the inkjet.
>
> Regarding lasers, are the modern ones any good. A company I worked for
> years ago used HP Laserjets (IIIs and 4s) and they seemd very robust.
> Are new ones similar or are the cheaper ones less solid?
> How about the Konica-Minolta 1300W, as an example?
>
> Any advice gratefully received.
>
> Thanks, John
>

For routine printing of text and graphics in the 200p/month range, laser
will not be cost effective.
A Canon IP3000 will do it cheap and FAST, and also produce excellent photos.
If you want an edge for photos, the Canon IP4000 is worth the slightly
higher cost, but the IP5000 is not worth it compared to a IP4000.


"John Fryatt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3Az5e.1395$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
>
> Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find any
> current info.
>
> I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use it
> for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.
>
> Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
> volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
> specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a maybe
> a few diagrams etc.
> Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical as
> the thing guzzles ink.
> I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing business
> or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200 pages/month.
>
> So, my question, for the above use would I benefit from getting a laser
> printer to use alongside the Epson inkjet? Obviously I'd have to buy the
> laser, but they seem pretty cheap these days. Lower cost per page is the
> aim of course. Is that still a feature of lasers?
> What volume of printing do you think represents a break even point re.
> printing with laser vs inkjet?
>
> Note - I'm thinking B&W laser here - the odd colour page could still be
> done on the inkjet.
>
> Regarding lasers, are the modern ones any good. A company I worked for
> years ago used HP Laserjets (IIIs and 4s) and they seemd very robust.
> Are new ones similar or are the cheaper ones less solid?
> How about the Konica-Minolta 1300W, as an example?
>
> Any advice gratefully received.
>
> Thanks, John
>

Ok, thanks. Does your reply mean that you don't think a laser is cost
effective for 200-ish pages/month? Could you say why you think that?

Being a photographer I would want to separate the photo printing from
business printing, so an HP 1200 might make sense.

A Konica-Minolta 1300W costs about the same as an HP 1200, in the UK, so
what makes the HP preferable? Lasers are cheaper to run, are they not?




measekite wrote:
> If you are satisfied with your Epson for Photos you might want to
> consider the HP 1200 series. It is a businesss printer that can print
> in full duplex.
>
> If you are not happy with the photos then consider the Canon IP5000. It
> is significantly better than the IP4000 for business documents,
> marginally inferior in photos and also a little slower than the IP4000
> but it will still produce great results. It has twin paper feeds and
> prints full duplex. I have an IP4000 and use the bottom cassette feed
> for paper and the top auto sheet feeder for photos.
>
> I also have an HP990CSE and use the draft mode for printing out computer
> programs. It is a fast draft (not as fast as the Canon) but the draft
> quality rivals the standard quality on many printers.
>
> John Fryatt wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find any
>> current info.
>>
>> I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use
>> it for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.
>>
>> Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
>> volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
>> specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a
>> maybe a few diagrams etc.
>> Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical
>> as the thing guzzles ink.
>> I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing business
>> or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200 pages/month.
<snip>

Dan G wrote:
> For routine printing of text and graphics in the 200p/month range, laser
> will not be cost effective.

Ok, thanks. Could you say why you think that?

Dan G wrote:

>For routine printing of text and graphics in the 200p/month range, laser
>will not be cost effective.
>A Canon IP3000 will do it cheap and FAST, and also produce excellent photos.
>If you want an edge for photos, the Canon IP4000 is worth the slightly
>higher cost, but the IP5000 is not worth it compared to a IP4000.
>
>

It is only if the emphasis is on business printing. Like I have been
saying; the IP5000 is significantly better for business documents and
marginally inferior when it comes to photos to the IP4000 and is also
somewhat slower.

>
>"John Fryatt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:3Az5e.1395$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find any
>>current info.
>>
>>I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use it
>>for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.
>>
>>Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
>>volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
>>specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a maybe
>>a few diagrams etc.
>>Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical as
>>the thing guzzles ink.
>>I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing business
>>or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200 pages/month.
>>
>>So, my question, for the above use would I benefit from getting a laser
>>printer to use alongside the Epson inkjet? Obviously I'd have to buy the
>>laser, but they seem pretty cheap these days. Lower cost per page is the
>>aim of course. Is that still a feature of lasers?
>>What volume of printing do you think represents a break even point re.
>>printing with laser vs inkjet?
>>
>>Note - I'm thinking B&W laser here - the odd colour page could still be
>>done on the inkjet.
>>
>>Regarding lasers, are the modern ones any good. A company I worked for
>>years ago used HP Laserjets (IIIs and 4s) and they seemd very robust.
>>Are new ones similar or are the cheaper ones less solid?
>>How about the Konica-Minolta 1300W, as an example?
>>
>>Any advice gratefully received.
>>
>>Thanks, John
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

John Fryatt wrote:

> Ok, thanks. Does your reply mean that you don't think a laser is cost
> effective for 200-ish pages/month? Could you say why you think that?
> Idid not say that but the that small a quantity I would take those
> costs out of the equation and decide on the remainder of the facts.
>
> Being a photographer I would want to separate the photo printing from
> business printing, so an HP 1200 might make sense.
>
> A Konica-Minolta 1300W costs about the same as an HP 1200, in the UK,
> so what makes the HP preferable? Lasers are cheaper to run, are they
> not? I am not sure of the color lasers.
>
>
>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>> If you are satisfied with your Epson for Photos you might want to
>> consider the HP 1200 series. It is a businesss printer that can
>> print in full duplex.
>>
>> If you are not happy with the photos then consider the Canon IP5000.
>> It is significantly better than the IP4000 for business documents,
>> marginally inferior in photos and also a little slower than the
>> IP4000 but it will still produce great results. It has twin paper
>> feeds and prints full duplex. I have an IP4000 and use the bottom
>> cassette feed for paper and the top auto sheet feeder for photos.
>>
>> I also have an HP990CSE and use the draft mode for printing out
>> computer programs. It is a fast draft (not as fast as the Canon) but
>> the draft quality rivals the standard quality on many printers.
>>
>> John Fryatt wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find
>>> any current info.
>>>
>>> I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use
>>> it for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.
>>>
>>> Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
>>> volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
>>> specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a
>>> maybe a few diagrams etc.
>>> Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical
>>> as the thing guzzles ink.
>>> I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing
>>> business or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200
>>> pages/month.
>>
> <snip>

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Dan G wrote:
>
>> For routine printing of text and graphics in the 200p/month range, laser
>> will not be cost effective.
>> A Canon IP3000 will do it cheap and FAST, and also produce excellent
>> photos.
>> If you want an edge for photos, the Canon IP4000 is worth the slightly
>> higher cost, but the IP5000 is not worth it compared to a IP4000.
>>
>>
>
> It is only if the emphasis is on business printing. Like I have been
> saying; the IP5000 is significantly better for business documents and
> marginally inferior when it comes to photos to the IP4000 and is also
> somewhat slower.
>

The iP5000 prints Highest Quality/Photo Paper Pro setting at 9600 dpi
vs. the iP4000's 4800. So yes, higher resolution will take longer to
print. Therefore, calling it "slower" is meaningless.

I do believe anything printed at "Standard" would be identical.

-Taliesyn

John Fryatt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find any
> current info.
>
> I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use it
> for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.
>
> Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
> volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
> specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a maybe
> a few diagrams etc.
> Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical as
> the thing guzzles ink.
> I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing business
> or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200 pages/month.
>
> So, my question, for the above use would I benefit from getting a laser
> printer to use alongside the Epson inkjet? Obviously I'd have to buy the
> laser, but they seem pretty cheap these days. Lower cost per page is the
> aim of course. Is that still a feature of lasers?
> What volume of printing do you think represents a break even point re.
> printing with laser vs inkjet?

Yes. And research locally available models and local supoort first. The
cheapest to buy is _not_ the cheapest to own. I bought an office-class
printer-copier-scanner, and am very happy with it, even though it cost
three times as much as a consumer-class machine. I have a service
contract from the same supplier, based on my experience with a copier
leased from him, and urge you to do so too. In the long run, you'll pay
less.

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:55:11 GMT, John Fryatt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Sorry if this has been gone over before, but I can't seem to find any
>current info.
>
>I have an Epson inkjet printer which has been great up to now. I use it
>for printing photographs and a few miscellaneous letters, etc.
>
>Now, however, my needs are changing and I will need to print more
>volume, not photographs, but things like letters, proposals,
>specifications, flyers, and other primarily text documents, with a maybe
>a few diagrams etc.
>Obviously the Epson would do this but it wouldn't be that economical as
>the thing guzzles ink.
>I'm not sure what volumes I'll print, but it isn't a printing business
>or anything like that, so (rough guess) maybe 150-200 pages/month.
>
>So, my question, for the above use would I benefit from getting a laser
>printer to use alongside the Epson inkjet? Obviously I'd have to buy the
>laser, but they seem pretty cheap these days. Lower cost per page is the
>aim of course. Is that still a feature of lasers?
>What volume of printing do you think represents a break even point re.
>printing with laser vs inkjet?
>
>Note - I'm thinking B&W laser here - the odd colour page could still be
>done on the inkjet.
>
>Regarding lasers, are the modern ones any good. A company I worked for
>years ago used HP Laserjets (IIIs and 4s) and they seemd very robust.
>Are new ones similar or are the cheaper ones less solid?
>How about the Konica-Minolta 1300W, as an example?
>
>Any advice gratefully received.
>
>Thanks, John



The best buy here is the Brother, 30,000 pages out of one Toner, after 2
toners you dump the printers as the Drum cost more then a new printer.

Or go the HP Cannon way but only get some 3000 pages ..

I use a old HP 6L that I picked up for some $27us..