4 ms·

Inkjets are just not great printers, especially if you print infrequently. Laser printers used to be an expensive luxury but they’ve long since become a commodi

Inkjets are just not great printers, especially if you print infrequently. Laser printers used to be an expensive luxury but they’ve long since become a commodity. Get a half decent laser printer and it will work fine even if you only print once a month.

dragontamer 6y ago
Okay, I think lasers > inkjets for most people. But its dangerous to generalize. Inkjets consistently make higher-resolution photos than lasers at the same price point. As you approach photo-quality, you can probably get very good photos from a $500 inkjet, and commercial quality photos from a $1000 inkjet. I don't know of any laserjet that approaches that quality. Instead, laserjets main advantage is the simpler and cheaper to use toner. At the $300 price point, laser jets are just cheaper to maintain and use over ink. -------- Now there's a bunch of $100 to $200 ink printers (and laser printers) which have even worse attributes. Since most $100 printers seem to be inkjet, I think people rightfully give them a bad reputation. But at higher price points, a 11-ink printer is the only way you're going to get anything near photo-quality. (Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000).
- code4tee 6y ago
  Agree, but I’d consider the photo quality printing to be more of an edge case for most users. If one just occasionally prints a few photos there are other inexpensive services available. But if that is the use case then yes I’d agree inkjet is better.
- xienze 6y ago
  > Inkjets consistently make higher-resolution photos than lasers at the same price point. But you get photos printed at <wherever> for pennies, so who wants to buy an inkjet and the fancy photo paper?
- asciimov 6y ago
  Unless your really need to print huge amounts of photos, most people would be better served by having their photos printed at a store or through an online service.
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    You could also buy print-jobs through an online service for forms and stuff, which is probably cheaper than buying a printer. So why buy a printer at all? Well, because of the convenience factor primarily. Buying from a store (or online service) requires driving, and/or waiting for the mail to arrive. When scrapbooking, or doing other projects with photos, its far more convenient to know that you have a printer that can instantly make a copy of any photo in your entire digital library. You don't necessarily know what photo you want yet, you may need to lay out a few pages in the scrap book before you know what you want. -------- In any case, a "community printer", ie: the local library, is probably best for people who only need a few documents a year. I think leveraging your local library resources is a skill that any adult should know how to do as well. When your documents grow beyond the ability for your local library, that's when you get your own printer.
Tijdreiziger 6y ago
Except that laser printers are huge, which is very much not ideal if you live in an apartment and only print once a month.

dragontamer 6y ago

Okay, I think lasers > inkjets for most people. But its dangerous to generalize. Inkjets consistently make higher-resolution photos than lasers at the same price point. As you approach photo-quality, you can probably get very good photos from a $500 inkjet, and commercial quality photos from a $1000 inkjet. I don't know of any laserjet that approaches that quality. Instead, laserjets main advantage is the simpler and cheaper to use toner. At the $300 price point, laser jets are just cheaper to maintain and use over ink. -------- Now there's a bunch of $100 to $200 ink printers (and laser printers) which have even worse attributes. Since most $100 printers seem to be inkjet, I think people rightfully give them a bad reputation. But at higher price points, a 11-ink printer is the only way you're going to get anything near photo-quality. (Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000).

code4tee 6y ago
Agree, but I’d consider the photo quality printing to be more of an edge case for most users. If one just occasionally prints a few photos there are other inexpensive services available. But if that is the use case then yes I’d agree inkjet is better.
xienze 6y ago
> Inkjets consistently make higher-resolution photos than lasers at the same price point. But you get photos printed at <wherever> for pennies, so who wants to buy an inkjet and the fancy photo paper?
asciimov 6y ago
Unless your really need to print huge amounts of photos, most people would be better served by having their photos printed at a store or through an online service.
- dragontamer 6y ago
  You could also buy print-jobs through an online service for forms and stuff, which is probably cheaper than buying a printer. So why buy a printer at all? Well, because of the convenience factor primarily. Buying from a store (or online service) requires driving, and/or waiting for the mail to arrive. When scrapbooking, or doing other projects with photos, its far more convenient to know that you have a printer that can instantly make a copy of any photo in your entire digital library. You don't necessarily know what photo you want yet, you may need to lay out a few pages in the scrap book before you know what you want. -------- In any case, a "community printer", ie: the local library, is probably best for people who only need a few documents a year. I think leveraging your local library resources is a skill that any adult should know how to do as well. When your documents grow beyond the ability for your local library, that's when you get your own printer.

Tijdreiziger 6y ago

Except that laser printers are huge, which is very much not ideal if you live in an apartment and only print once a month.