Community poll forum: What brand of printer do you own, and are you happy with it?

I've always been happy with Epson printers. This one took awhile to determine the best settings to achieve optimal results, but I'm pleased to say that I can now rate this one an A+, although I think you can get very similar results on several of their less expensive models. The Ultrachrome ink creates great b&w prints.

I use the Canon S900 photo printer, and so far,(3 years) I have no complaints.

I have had two HP Multifunction printers since I first received a computer. They both have had problems feeding the paper. However, I like having all functions available so I deal with it. I recently received an Epson Photo R220 for Christmas. I got it primarily to print pictures...and it also prints CD's. I am having trouble with the CD printer but am in the midst of solving the problem. I love the quality of the pictures it prints.

I own five printers-four Epsons and one HP. My prime printer is an Epson 2200. It is an excellent photo printer. I have printed pictures up to 13"by 19" with no problems.
Don B

If you want a laser that is great but not too expensive (and save your inkjet for photos), check out the Xerox Phasers. I got the 6350DP (w/ 1GB RAM) and its great for printing a lot plus you can print drafts or quick-prints of photos just to show (not charish).

I also agree that HPs are not very reliable. Have used a 4550N which broke the day after warranty expired and a PhotoSmart 7760 whose ink cartridges keep clogging up and having to replace.

After discussing those dye sublimation printers, I pulled my old one out (I've still got 10 boxes of 25 sheet paper/ink packs) and I compared the results with my Canon i9900 and Phaser 6350. The Phaser is very crappy looking. The colors are dull (but I use it primarily for my work and printing), but printing is very fast at 36 ppm, so great for those drafts and just-show-to-friend types. The Canon is excellent, but when I compared the dye sublimation to the inkjet, I found that the 6 year old Sony (DPP-SV55) produced colors that were bright, vivid, and true to life. The speed was worse than I mentioned before at about 2 minutes for a 4 x 6 printout. The Canon is great, and its pretty fast. I guess that inkjets are better for those bulk photo printing, but if you need a printing that really good, dye sublimation is the way to go.

I can't imagine how good your Canon must be if my aged Sony looks better than my inkjets/lasers.

I have 2 HP printers. The ne I use is a PSC 2110 and the one that is on my husband's desk is a 3845. I am very happy with both of them.

I have the Epson 1200, the 2200, and the EPL5700i (boack laser). I use the 1200 for cards that I sell in our Coop Gallery (Island Gallery West - Hoilmes, Beach, FL). Earlier I used it for photographs. I use the 2200 for photographs and love it! The EPL 5700i is a laser workhorse that has given great service.
jb

I have had better luck with EPSON priners. Currently using a Stylus C86, I would buy another one.

I have a brother laser printer (HL-2040) and it is amazing. It prints really fast and the toner lasts forever. I have had it for almost 2 years and I never had to replace the toner. I still have about 3 thousand pages to go before it goes out. Recommend to all people. I got it at Staples for about 100 bucks.

we used to have several dye sub printers .. these were full page with really nice output .. we didnt use them much because they were (at that time) very costly to run ... but the quality was better than anything else. now we use several epsons and HPs and color laser ... i am not sure but the epsons probably come close to the dye sub in quality but the cost per print is probably almost as high as the dye subs used to be .. dye sub, even at low resolution is hard to beat and heck most printers are expensive to run anymore. ink is probably the most expensive fluid you have every bought ... the HPs do a nice job and calibration is better out of the box .. but i think the epsons have the edge on fine art and nice photos except that the color shifts somewhat depending on the light source. if you are a perfectionist you have to calibrate the printer for its intended use .. that is if its to be viewed under sunlight or flou lamps then its quite different from normal incand lightning ..i understand thats been improved in the latest tech .. the color lasers i have used have not been spectacular but good ... looks like the canon people are happy . i will have to try one of those soon...

i would love to compare the output of the epson with a modern dye sub and other printers... or better yet maybe CNET can do that for us ... trouble is that each printer has to be optimized by someone very familiar with them in order to show their ultimate capability ... then ease of use is another story ..pros dont care so much how hard it is to use the thing if it gives spectacular results .. most people probably would just like to plug it in and run ... i like messing with them to get all i can get and i get spectacular results from the epsons but less spectacular results from HP but with less fooling around ..

This was my first printer since the days of dot matrix, and I simply love it. I would not choose anything else.

I have two HP printers a 7350 And a 3210 and I am happy with them.

I have an epson CX3200 I bought it about a year ago so far it works great having all three functions plus the epson ink cartridge is probably the cheapest on the market.
For my photo printing I use epson R600 which is also a great printer great results with the right paper and again the catridges for this model are also very cheap to buy.
cheere for now Tom

Well I have a rather old HP G85 and basically I am looking for something faster and able to print out digital photos - not laser!

Yes, the i9900 is amazing and its very much worth its value if you 1) print a lot, 2) print big photo a lot.

Now don't ever buy laser for photos. They are for high capacity document and graphics prints (Graphics are not photos). So don't ever consider a laser for photos.