My wife and I are looking for a general purpose color inkjet printer.
It must be able to print on ledger size (tabloid, 11"x17") paper. It
will be used to print a variety of projects, such as resumes/cover
letters, envelopes, certificates, business cards, vector graphic art,
digital photos and scans, greeting cards, web pages, and black & white
newsletters.

We are looking closely at the Canon i9900, but we've read where you have
to feed it expensive photo paper for good results. (Rightfully so,
since it is classified as a photo printer.) We want a printer that can
use good quality inkjet paper to produce good photos and sharp line art
and text, even at small sizes. Speaking of paper, we read where the
i9900 cannot accept paper thicker than 28 lbs., which would rule out
cardstock, wouldn't it?

I wish we had the funds and the space for two separate printers, but we
don't, so we have to settle for one printer for all our printing needs.
Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance to those who help.

- Steve

Steve Ward wrote:


Each printer must be fed with expensive paper in order to get good results.
You get better results at quality paper with low cost printer than vice
versa...if you want to print photos, then photo paper is the only way to go.
You can't expect really good result on normal plain paper.
In any case, i'm quite happy with mine ip4000, but this is only A4 printer,
so it's too small for your needs... :-(((

Canon, Epson or HP inkjets are good choices. I prefer the HP inkjets
because if some thing goes wrong the are easy to repair and spare parts are
readily available. My first printer was a Canon 600, then I had several
Epson's and my main printers are HP. I switched to HP after Epson started to
put chips in their cartridges. Notice I didn't mention Lexmark printers.
Pete
"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:tEDnd.5845$F6.1286089@news.siol.net...

Canon i9900 is a good printer. There are in fact many good photo paper to choose
from. Have you looked into Costco's Kirkland brand glossy photo paper? That's
one excellent paper to use at $19 for 125 sheets (letter size).

"Steve Ward" <sward@tulsaconnectspamm.com> wrote in message
news:j8Dnd.3300163$yk.514385@news.easynews.com...

The HP Deskjet 9650 may be a good match. See:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en...51-306780.html

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

Pete wrote:
I agree with you about Lexmarks...i'v ehad two (cheap ones)...Carts are damn
expensive.
But, i wouldn't buy HP, too. Their carts are expensive, and they are very
slow when printing photos, like model450Ci, which needs whole 30 minutes to
print A4 photo, while some Canon does same job in just over 2 minutes.

Bill wrote:


Colours don't run out at the same rate, so if they are all in one cartridge then
you're throwing away ink. This makes printers like your 6540 more expensive to
run, because you are replacing the ink cartridge more frequently.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

I have just purchased a Cannon Pixma 4000 (amazing speed/great
quality/individual ink cartridges) and have to say I am stunned at the
results - it is simply amazing compared to the awful Epson 810 Photo
(heads blocking/chipped cartridges/poor quality) we had, that said the
build quality could be better - time will tell. I was always a fan of
espon until the 810, I still have a 740 in use that gives good
results. We use a hp 1100 laserjet bought cheap off ebay for general
black and white and is generally trouble free. Haven't had a hp since
the 660 which was rubbish. Lexmark are IMO more trouble than they're
worth.

Bill wrote:


I've got a Canon i9950 and 2 friends with i865. We all go through the photo
colours MUCH quicker than the rest. It's NOT manufacturer hype.

I've heard plenty of people report the same experience as my friends and I, so
I'm inclined to think you are not a typical user.
--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

Bill wrote:

You forgot to mention that Canon's carts hold much more ink than those at
HP. And i don't have to mention that i usually don't buy all 3 colors, but
separately one one i'm out of.

Dave wrote:

Agreed 101 %!

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message news:<mU0pd.6013$F6.1287364@news.siol.net>...

I agree with what the others suggested-it should be a great weekend to
check out some of the after thanksgiving sales-I'd suggest stopping by
staples and see what kind of deals they have in the store or online.

Bill wrote:
When i was up to buy first Canon, i was looking about HP, too. But, then i
decided for Canon and so far i'm not sorry. For one thing, i just read some
reviews about printers and i saw that HP needs whole 30 minutes to print A4
photo, while canon does same job in just over 2 minutes. And better than
HP...In any case, since i refill, Canons are easiest to refill (you must
admit that) and with it, costs are way lowest among all printers. Even with
canon inks, costs (according to review) are cheapest. So....i guess at the
end, each says my is the best and, as you said, you buy what you need...

Helena wrote:
Yep, some are lucky...in USA these printers are about 50% cheaper than
here...but still, from i've seen, ip4000 is best bet. That extra photo black
does wonderfull job indeed!

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:z-SdnbsPffXrbDncRVn-1Q@golden.net...
Your point?


Awful big assumtion on your part. I (and most others I know can go weeks
between changing another tank after replacing a different one.

Give me a break! I certainly hope that smiley is an indication of what a
rediculous point this would be (if it were one at all).


Which is the one that gives me the best quality print and costs the least to
operate because I can change individual ink tanks.
Hey, that's my Canon!!

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message news:uv6pd.6038

I am glad you like your printer, but I suspect you must have misread the
review. Was this in an April 1 issue?

- Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

Bob Headrick wrote:
nope....2 weeks ago...
Can you explain a bit more? I mean, for quite a time now there's common
knowledge that Canon printers have the cheapest price per page... And i also
saw the "speed" of HP at my friend's...it was not a photo, just normal color
page and it took so looooooooooooong to print...

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:54:28 -0800, "Bob Headrick" <bobh@proaxis.com>
wrote:

best quality photo coming out of an HP.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:O4qpd.6120$F6.1287946@news.siol.net...

Common knowledge? Can you point to any data based on actual measurements (as
opposed to mfg spec's)? There are certainly a range of products from both
manufacturers, with a range of speed and price per page. I suspect the HP
Business Inkjet 1200 series has better real world cost per page than any under
$200 color printer available. It has seperate ink tanks. See:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en...51-411179.html

As for speed, I suppose it is possible to find a very old HP printer, perhaps
driven by a 66 Mhz 486sx that could take thirty minutes to print, but five
minutes is more typical for best mode for printers sold in this millenia.
Certainly any recent HP Photo printer will be closer to three minutes than
thirty minutes for a best mode full size photo print.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:rnadq0tm5m3q4qr3vn04u06mhnnooj07tq@4ax.com...
I can not quote the time for an HP and here is why.....
I was recently in my local CompUSA and overheard the HP Rep telling a
potential customer how the HP he was demonstrating "would beat the
competition hands-down in both speed and quality", since they were about to
take this at face value (and knowing my iP4000 prints a pretty damn quick
image) I had to ask, 'can you give us a demonstration?'. Sure he said and
proceeded to load a piece of photo paper and press the button to get a
sample print. After about 3-4 minutes I simply stated 'my printer would have
print two or three by now' and walked away. His potential customer caught up
with me a few minutes later stating it still had not finished and asked what
printer I had. I told him about my iP4000. He thanked me and went and picked
up an iP6000D from the shelf. I kin of felt like coming back when the Canon
guy was there and asking for my cut of the sale! :0)