|
Post by Angelstardust on Mar 10, 2011 21:15:34 GMT
The saga of the printer must come to an end, so I've decided that, givne the age and usage, I'm going to buy a new one.
I can get an updated version of this one for around £100, which would be a decent amount to pay, but I'm unsure and must decide and order within a week.
I have very little toner from this and it would fit another Samsung anyway, so that is not a consideration.
Given that I rather liked the one that has now started to give me grief, should I get the more recent model?
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Mar 10, 2011 21:47:28 GMT
Does your next printer have to be laser?
|
|
|
Post by mikkh on Mar 11, 2011 0:24:10 GMT
For volume printing, which is what Angel does I believe - then yes, it has to be laser for speed and cost per page.
I'd go for the updated model myself
|
|
|
Post by nike on Mar 11, 2011 0:58:46 GMT
They don't come any cheaper than the Samsung Angel, so yeah, go for it, but give yourself a 2 year time frame to replace it. Just make sure that you don't have any toner cartridges left over when the next one turns it's toes up, not like me.
|
|
|
Post by movieman36 on Mar 11, 2011 11:28:35 GMT
Oh yes, I bought a HP colour laser a couple of years back and although the print quality and speed were very good it has got to be the most expensive exercise in printing I have ever had. The four toners started at £50 each and within the year had risen to £80 each (yep £320 per refill). I wasn't doing massive print runs, say a hundred of this, 50 of that and in my second year of ownership I had spent £1280 on toner......So when the printer started to play up (only occasionally) I thought I would call HP in to fix it as I had taken out their 3 year next day on site repair warranty....but then thought about it again and came up with another cure. I unplugged it, carried outside to where I keep my dustbin and slung it up the garden.
I now own an HP 6500 office jet (ink-jet) printer. An all in one that is superb at doing photocopies with one button press, has a built in duplex unit, is actually quicker and quieter printing than the laser (which by the way was the multiple award winning HP 2650 dn) and I can replace all the inks, which includes two black ink with text being printed with pigment ink, print at a quality that matches the laser and in many respects beats the laser for about £45. To date I seem to be getting about the same amount of pages out of it as the laser per refill...I think it is great.
|
|
|
Post by nike on Mar 11, 2011 21:41:20 GMT
I'm with you MM. I've just cancelled my back order of the Canon MF8450c colour laser multi-function. Since getting my Epson Stylus Photo 1410, I've decided than my inks don't cost all that much for both my inkjet printers, and the Epson photo print quality has to be seen to be believed. No laser printer can print that good. I guess that's why all the pro photographers choose Epson. I'm keeping my Canon MP640 multi-function because it's also very economical on ink.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 11, 2011 21:51:58 GMT
If you do a lot of printing you can get CISS systems for Epson, HP, Brother and I think some Canon models.
|
|
|
Post by nike on Mar 11, 2011 22:15:18 GMT
I've lost quite a few printers by using non-genuine ink Ken, so the CISS system is definately not an option for me, especially the new Epson. Genuine ink is way cheaper now than it used to be, and I always have spare cartridges for both my printers in stock.
Having said that, the Canon inks are around half the price of the Epson ones at , but the Epson cartridges are special photo quality ones, and are naturally more expensive at around $18.35 each.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 11, 2011 22:36:44 GMT
I've been using my Brother A3 for everything Kev, as I haven't unlocked the HP yet. For a 4 ink printer, the Brother is doing a lovely job. The quality might be a tad better with the HP 6 ink, but not a lot. I've been using CISS on the HP for a couple of years and was thinking of getting one for the Brother. Brother ink has got to be the cheapest of the lot and its hardly worth putting CISS on it. I can get 3 sets of cartridges for the Brother for 15 quid. It would cost me £45.00 for the CISS. As the Brother is working so well, I told Liam he can have the HP, after I've unlocked it. I've had no trouble with using that heavy quality card with the Brother, it wouldn't go through the HP and I had to use the thinner stuff. Putting it on that heavy dead level base, I've had none of the trouble that other people claim to have with Brother.
|
|
|
Post by Angelstardust on Mar 11, 2011 22:45:14 GMT
My first was a brother (rebadged Olivetti). It ate paper like nobody's business.
I tried Epsons, but I have times when I don't print for a few days and then the ink dries in the print heads, so I find myself unable to print certain colours without replacing the cartridge.
As I say, I've liked this Samsung. To replace all colours costs me just short of £150 and lasts for months, with a top up of a £50 black toner cartridge. Big drawback for me with laser is having to make sure the paper/labels/etc is laser friendly.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 11, 2011 22:58:11 GMT
My printer base was set up with a spirit level Angel. If your printer isn't dead level it will jam up and eat paper. Brother and Lexmark are the worst paper eaters and as long as they are level in both directions, they will work perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by nike on Mar 11, 2011 23:27:02 GMT
Yes Angel, that was my main concern with buying an Epson. I have had them in the past, and the nozzles have blocked up due to lack of use. This time, I will be putting it to a lot more use than the ones in the past, as I will be printing all my photo's worthy of printing on it on a regular basis.
My Canon MP640 all-in-one has 6 ink tanks, as does the Epson. It only costs me $80.00 for a full set of genuine Canon cartridges, and they seem to last quite a long time. It may cost me a bit more to run than a colour laser, but at least I won't have to replace it in a couple of years time.
|
|
|
Post by movieman36 on Mar 12, 2011 0:32:04 GMT
After my HP laser experience, quality and paper handling superb but running costs unbelievably expensive even on relatively low numbers for a laser, the HP office jet mentioned in my previous post is one of the most impressive all round printers I have ever owned (and I've owned a lot). For colour work I stick to my fav which is my canon printer (had Epsom’s and HP's in the past also) for its print quality, speed and reasonable ink costs, note I said reasonable (not cheap).
I gave up using any sort of 'compatible cartridge years ago, I found them a false economy due to problems they caused and poor print quality. The last set I had for the canon (I had quite a bit of spot colour printing to do for my business so thought I would save a few quid) turned out to be rubbish, blacks were just a dark grey and I couldn't get a strong orange whatever I did, all I ever managed was a brick red instead. But I only wasted £12 on a complete set so I can't complain really.
If I want printing done in bulk now I just have it printed by a proper printing company. I use a few I found on eBay. Recently I had 5000 A5 full colour leaflets, printed both sides on good glossy paper delivered in a week for £50 and the print quality is first class.....see how your home printing costs stack up against that. I also had 5000 full colour post cards done by another company, again both sides and great quality, £75 delivered. I do supply my own artwork though.
|
|
|
Post by nike on Mar 12, 2011 1:59:45 GMT
Yep, exactly my thoughts too. If I want to do anything in bulk, I farm it out to a local print shop. Much cheaper than doing it myself. I really don't need a laser printer now.
The colour output from my Canon MP640 is good, but not as good as from the Epson 1410. Using photo quality inks may be a bit more expensive, but the final product is brilliant. I've never seen results like this before with any other printer i've ever owned.
The president of my camera club told me about it, he has one himself. He's a retired pro photographer and said that if you want quality prints, you have to go the higher end Epson printers, use photo quality inks, and genuine Epson photo paper, which I have done.
The result of printing a photo of a creek running through the reeds, taken on a recent club outing, on Epson A3 semigloss paper had me ecstatic with the end result. It's as if I was back there looking at it once again. At around $3.00 a sheet plus the ink costs, I will only be printing the very best of my photo's on that paper stock.
|
|
|
Post by Angelstardust on Mar 12, 2011 9:24:34 GMT
I really expected to get better quality prints from a laser and I think my experiences od Epsons put me off ink jet.
|
|
|
Post by buzzy on Mar 12, 2011 11:47:55 GMT
I have an Epson Stylus Photo R340 printer (6 cartridges) which I have had for many years. The head clogging scenario is well documented everwhere, I don't do a vast amount of printing, but I have overcome the eventuality by doing a quick printout about once a week of an image I saved. I have never had a problem and the digital photographs I take are superb.
|
|
|
Post by Angelstardust on Mar 17, 2011 12:56:17 GMT
So, do I go for a wireless version, or the old style one with physical connection?
|
|
|
Post by Angelstardust on Mar 17, 2011 13:16:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by martytoo on Mar 17, 2011 17:54:28 GMT
Looks Good
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 17, 2011 20:50:28 GMT
Thats the one I said it would be cheaper to just replace. than buy new ink for.. As long as it does what you want it to, it cant be any worse than the last one.
My own experience of laser printers they have all been very big, expensive and professionally maintained. My own printers have all been ink jet, quite expensive and wireless network. I dont think that machine will give you the quality of a good ink jet, but you will get a lot more speed for bulk printing. Speed isn't important to me, only quality. In that respect, I'm the last person to ask.
|
|
|
Post by nike on Mar 17, 2011 21:55:04 GMT
They seem to bring out a new model every year. It started with the CLP300 early the year before last, then towards the middle of the year, out came the CLP315, and now they've released the CLP320. I bet the toner cartridges are different to the CLP315 too.
If you had a business office to service like I did, with nine computers all running a Samsung laser printer each, and one of them died, you would then end up with all different models of Samsungs, and none of them take the same toner cartridges. You would have to keep some of this one, some of that one, etc, etc. This business office had six different model Samsung's and every one of them took a different toner cartridge. Bloody nightmare for them, having to sort out which cartridge they needed, and for me having to source some of them that always seemed to be out of stock.
|
|
|
Post by Angelstardust on Mar 18, 2011 21:25:15 GMT
I'm coming to the end of my stock of toner anyway, but it looks the same cartrdge in the illustrations.
|
|
|
Post by nike on Mar 18, 2011 21:32:26 GMT
Before you buy it, check that out Angel. There was one model Samsung mono laser that appeared to take the same cartridge as it's predecessor, but it didn't. They always manage to make them a little different each time, and that is what annoyed me with Samsung. I'll go for Canon or Xerox in the future. They are more expensive to start with, but they last way longer, and mostly the cartridges are the same.
|
|