- Average user rating: 3.5 stars out of 21 reviews Back to product review
- My rating: 0 stars
Full user review
-
84 out of 92 people found this review helpful
3.0 stars
"NOT a photo printer"
Pros: fast, efficient, cheap ink, slide/negative scanning
Cons: No photo inks, photos fade quicker.
Summary: My rating is based on the claim of this machine to be a photo printer. Any printer can print photos, but any printer isn't a photo printer. To be considered a photo printer, it should use photo inks- lt cyan, lt magenta,(possibly also- red/blue/green ink). Secondly, using Canon's paper, photos fade faster than anyone except Lexmark's using Kodak's paper. The ink may be cheaper but you'll wind up reprinting your photos which will cost double in the long run.
Epson and HP both have longer life photos. HP has been rated superior by just about every magazine including this month's Consumer Reports.
Funny how this was compared to the HP 2710 instead of the 2610 which is $100 cheaper and the only difference is the wi/fi and lcd screen size.
And comparing any printer's print quality and ink cost to a Lexmark is a joke. There's a reason why HP won so many awards in Orlando recently for the Digital Imaging Marketing Association (DIMA) Camera and Printer Shoot-Out competitions. http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2005/050228a.html
or
http://www.pmai.org/mktrsrch/mrweb/dimaso05.aspx
Epson has had the slide/negative scanner for over a year now.
It amazes me that companies who play catch-up with each other and the reviewers gush over their new technology.
In the May issue of Consumer Reports-
1. HP 2710
2. Canon Pixma MP780
3. HP psc1350 (replaced by 1610)
4. Canon MP 370 (replaced by mp390)
5. HP psc 1315
Followed by Dell962, EpsonRX500/600, Lexmark 5270, Epson cx6600.
Finally, something that the manfactur's won't tell you- In Epson AND Canon, they tout their individual ink as a cost savings. Well, if you only replace ONE tank, the printer primes ALL the tanks wasting up to 5% each time. You can prove this by checking the ink levels on an Epson AIO- replace one ink, and watch the ink level go DOWN.
Individual tanks are good for those printing graphics when one would print one color much more than others, but for the average home user, not much savings. Canon is great on black ink savings- If one company is able to do this, ALL companies should be able to do this.
Back to this AIO printer. If one wants a general purpose all in one, then this is a great machine. If one wants to print long lasting photos and get the best quality, I recommend buying higher quality paper than Canon's or use an HP or Epson who's photos have been rated to last more than 100 years.
(easy fade test- print photo from each mfr printer on their best paper- cover half with black paper and tape each to a sun exposed window. Remove after a couple of weeks to reveal which one actually fades quicker).Updated
I did not bash Canon nor Epson- I never said this printer printed badly. My comments weren't necessarily directed at Canon but Cnet.
Geez you people take things so seriously.
First off: My information regarding fading comes from the Wilhelm Iminging Research.
Fade resistance of Epson http://www.wilhelm-research.com/epson/R300_R320.html
Fade Resistance of Canon
HP's Fade Resistance
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/hp/8450.html
Canon's Fade Resistance
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/PCWorld_FadeFactor_Nov_2002.pdf#search=%22canon%22
I didn't bash Epson as I stated that Epson and HP both beat Canon in Fade Resistance.
Canon's new Chromalife inks may be better, but as of right now, there's no data to support that claim yet. As far as using ink, ues all three do prime the cartridges to some extent, but HP's tri-color cartridge uses the least amount of ink of the three to do this and HP's new individual tank printers actually recycle this ink therefore NOT wasting it like Canon and Epson do. To show that I wasn't bashing Canon, their 6 ink photo printer, in my opinion, prints the best of the three companies. I was very pleased with the photo quality. It did have the least amount of grain.
Again, my comments were regarding the way Cnet reviews, the language they use, the things they omit from their reviews. They don't compare apples to apples and then in their "Cons" section they put down products that don't equal others. This is not a good way to review a product. I mean, Cnet making comparrisons with Lexmark illustrates that point. That's ALMOST like comparing it with a Brother printer. Just because I happen to know a bit about ink jet printing doesn't mean I work for one of the companies. I've just done a bit of research.
If you re-read my original posting, you will see I bashed NO product.
So Reeelax!
- 10 replies to this review
-
I read this review hoping you were having the same problem as I am... I have tried to print photos both from a file, my memory card from my camera and also from scanning... NONE of the prints look the same as the original. The colors are off significantly.
Anyone have suggestions? Am I using this machine incorrectly? -
HP makes very good product - as do Epson and Canon. But you haven't used this one, I guess, because it's great AIO and the photos out of it are phenomenal. Anothe rterrific feature is the removeable print head which many do not have - let's you clean easily instead of throwing the printer away in frustration. I have had it for 5 months and am absolutely thrilled at the way it uses ink - I'm just about ready to replace the large black tank because we use it mostly for grayscale printing. The ink cartridges are super affordable - even in the brick & mortars. And this is for Canon';s excellent Chromalife inks. This one is tough to beat joshsc and I think you need to calm down on the HP - they make great stuff but so do the others. Later....
-
When it comes to creating photos with three colors Canon is clearly the best from the rest. The idea that you need photo cyan or photo magenta is clearly marketing drivel. The consumer is getting ripped off.
Photos don't fade on Canon photo paper either as the poster suggested. I've been using Canon's for over 5 years and have not had any problems with color fading.
For a comparison take a look at Steve's review of the Canon IP5200 which also using only 5 colors and does so well he wonders if we need 8 color printers anymore.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/canon_ip5200.html
========= -
While I respect joshsc's opinion, I simply don't know what he is talking about. This is one of the best photo printers I can imagine. The quality is as good or better than any HP or other machine out there. Canon knows what it is doing. If you read the reviews on the HP he talks about you will see the problems with that machine. This Pixma runs rings around the HP. It's photos are beautiful, other experts I consulted said they were fade resistant, water resistant, and should last every bit as long without fading as prints from any other printer, including HP. The machine is solidly built, does everything you could possibly want and much, much more, is easy to use, reliable and dependable. Why he is down on it when no one else - all over the net - raves about makes me wonder. What's going on?
As for me, I wouldn't own anything else. Very, very satisfied with this AIO and everything it does. And once again I am escpecially impressed by its photo printing quality. Thank you. -
mean spirited comments leaves room for all sorts of remarks.stick to facts lets not insult each other and why why why waste time
speaking of. bye and may God bless you all and those you love.
tc -
Lets not forget that the MP760 is the exact equivalent to the MP780 without the fax machine and ADF...therefor I would put it at #2 on the list with the MP780. The cost of a printer is one thing, but the cost of ink is another. I don't think there is any comparison when you put a Canon up to HP regarding ink costs...we're talking a lot of money. If you replaced each ink tank only twice, based on each manufacturers websitem the cost of a HP would be $319.88 compared to only $123.50.
-
After using this printer for a few months now, I can say that it works very well. The pictures do not fade like you mention, and I strongly considered it against the current HP's at the time. I was very close to buying the HP, but thanks to CNET here I was able to avoid it. Specifically, their drivers were very bad, some guys had very high quality issues, and others couldn't even get theirs to do duplex printing at all. However, the most harming one was the guy who tried to get support just to be forwarded to India, and spend hours trying to get over the English barrier.
Now for the printer review.
The print quality of photos is excellent on good paper. I have NOT done 8.5 X 11 yet, so I can't comment on that size.
The duplex unit works great.
The software works well on Win2k.
The copy function works well.
Overall this is an excellent printer for the cost. My only gripe is that they don't have a Linux driver on their site. That sucks. -
Just because hp needs 6-8 inks to put out an acceptable (barely) picture doesn't mean that Canon has to. I've seen the difference and could never go back to the HP.
If your Canon Pictures faded you didn't use the right paper for the job, as they have several based on exposed or photo album style needs.
I've been using the ink system in these printers for several years now and I must tell you that all of your assumptions seem to come right out of the HP training manual.
Talk to people that purchase instead of those paid by HP and I think you'll find an awesome printer and a great value. -
You must work for HP or something buddy!
Trashing on Canon & Epson like that... come on! You seriously would rather pay $35 for 17ml, TOTAL, rather than $11-$14 for 13ml of EACH color?!?! So what if they prime the ink heads, NEWS FLASH: SO DOES HP!!
The beauty of it is when you run out of one color... you just replace ONE COLOR! Since the Canon inks are in clear tanks, you can SEE that they DO NOT get used up evenly! THAT, my friend is value!
As for the picture quality, you must have a strong stigmitism in your eyes because the detail on the HP's are easy to see granulations. Where as the Canon & Epsons are much clearer, oh, and not to get started on the picoliters... yes, the actuall droplet size of each ink that is dispersed. The Canon had them as small as 1 picoliter!!! how small are the HP's?? they range from 5-11!! yes, 11!
I work w/ dozens of professional photogropghers and not one of them uses a HP. It's either a Canon or Epson, so please stop trying to swing stock value by typing up reviews for you're employeer. -
You mentioned "there's a reason why HP won so many awards in Orlando.."
Indeed there was: namely, that there were no other contestants, so HP was the "winner" (if you can call that winning) by default!
See http://www.photoscala.com/node/view/
Notice the word "uncontested" under the inkjet $200 section, next to HP's model number in all the 4 categories that HP "won".
You can also verify that on the PMAI link that you gave: the website lists all contestant and as you can see, HP was the only contestant iin those 4 categories.
I wonder why HP does not find it embarassing to declare itself a winner in 4 categories when there were no other contestants
