//some 3rd party need geo

Photo quality comparison - MFDs Vs Photo printers

  Magic15 14:24 13 Aug 04

I'm thinking of getting a new PC and printing photos is posing a few issues.
Does an all-in-one printer (mid spec, up to £300) print the same quality (to the naked eye) as you could expect from a dedicated photo printer (mid spec, £150)?
Can anyone speak from experience?

  Stuartli 14:47 13 Aug 04

By its very nature an MFD is a compromise (often a low cost one at that) - individually each component can normally be bettered by a dedicated version, whether printer, scanner etc.

  Pesala 17:21 13 Aug 04

Looking at the specs of modern MFDs I don't think one is going to need to make many compromises with a budget of £300.

Something like the Epson RX500 click here is only £200, but it is unlikely to disappoint. It's lesser sibling for tops the list in the PC Advisor reviews. This one includes a transparency adapter.

If you don't want to compromise on quality look at the reviews on Photo-i click here

  Dorsai 17:51 13 Aug 04

To paraphraise this months PCA mag. (page 88, issue 110)

a MFD will give as good text printing, but not as good hign resolution colour/photo printing as a standalone inkjet. It will also probably be slower.

and verbatim

"for enthusiasts, a dedicated photo printer is a better option"

So i guess it depends on how fussy you are about the quality of the output.

  Bagsey 19:26 13 Aug 04

Another thought on this is that in a combined machine if the scanner or any individual bit goes down then you have lost the lot.
For a good photo printer have a look at Dabs click here they have good prices on the epson r300.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

What is Google Allo? What is Google Duo? Google Allo UK release date rumours and features: Google…

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

These clever designs help visualise a complex intelligence tool

iOS 10 troubleshooting tips: Simple fixes for the most common iOS 10 problems, from network…