Epson WorkForce WF-7525

  morddwyd 20:45 11 May 2012

Anybody with direct hands on experience of this all in one?

I am looking for an A3 copier and like the look of this one but not sure about performance.

I need it for A3 copying of original artwork, and obviously colour rendition is absolutely paramount. Unlike photos, software tweaking is not suitable.

Tried a Brother but it's a bit muddy and a bit flimsy in the build quality.

None of the retailers I've visited are willing to set one up and let me try a trial print, obviously not interested in a £300 sale!

  Woolwell 20:55 11 May 2012

Not a good review Epson WF-7525

  morddwyd 07:29 12 May 2012

On the other hand there are a couple of five star reviews on Amazon.

The trouble is they all seem more concerned with duplex printing and paper handling than colour rendition!

  Woolwell 10:26 12 May 2012

Retailers are not going to set one up for a trial print in case it is then not sold as they will then be left with an out-of-box demo machine.

I note that they are referred to as business scanners on the Epson site.

  morddwyd 12:23 12 May 2012

"Retailers are not going to set one up for a trial print in case it is then not sold as they will then be left with an out-of-box demo machine."

Perhaps not every machine in stock, and perhaps not in your area, but most big retailers locally have half a dozen or so set up for demos.

Even if the actual model you are interested in is not there you can normally get some idea from another model from the same manufacturer. For instance, in this particular case, the Epson 7515 uses the same print engine and much of the same carriage as the 7525, it just has an A4 glass screen and scales up to A3, rather than a direct copy.

The last one I bought, a Canon Pixma, was available for demo, funnily enough in PC World, though a different branch.

  clm 11:09 06 Jun 2012

I've had the WF-7525 for a few days now. No problem with print quality: normal mode provides acceptably clear, crisp text. Examined under a magnifying glass, letter edges are slightly less sharp than print from my Canon MX860 but the difference is minimal and to the naked eye results are excellent. Finer settings approach laser quality but are slower. Photo prints are also outstanding – though not quite as good as the Canon: colour is ever-so-slightly muddier and less vibrant (might be correctable using printer settings), and fine detail, especially in darker areas, is less well defined. This is true for plain paper at normal quality and glossy photo paper at best quality. However the differences are marginal and unless you are unusually demanding or a professional photographer prints are more than acceptable for most business or personal use. For morddwyd's original artwork copying it might be less satisfactory - depends on the degree of quality needed. This is also a speedy printer, much faster than my Canon, although pre-print processing can take up to twenty seconds.

  morddwyd 14:28 06 Jun 2012

Many thanks for the very constructive reply.

Hopefully I'm not too demanding, and I certainly won't be using a magnifying glass!

My current A3 printer is a Brother, and colour rendition is always a bit hit and miss, and usually ends up with some sort of compromise.

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

Elsewhere on IDG sites

iPhone X review

How to find a font: Discover the name of a typeface with these apps

The best iPhone for 2017

Les meilleurs logiciels de montage vidéo gratuits (en 2017)