Photo quality comparison - MFDs Vs Photo printers

  Magic15 14:24 13 Aug 2004

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 2004

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 2004

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 2004

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 2004

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.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

WPA2 hack: How secure is your Wi-Fi?

HP’s new Surface Pro rival is designed specifically for Adobe-using designers and artists

Best kids apps for iPhone & iPad

Que faire si son iPhone ou iPad est tombé dans de l'eau ?