Just posted: Our first multifunctional printer group test

I have been a viewer of DPReview for over eight years and have seen many changes here, some good, some not so good. The recent changes to the forums have really made DPReview a much nicer and much easier place to spend time at!

A couple of points regarding the Canon. I have owned the MG8120, the model # for the US, for a few months now and whereas I do like it, I have reverted to my old HP 722c for B&W text printing because this thing does love ink. I'm pretty sure it uses color carts when doing text printing (my perception) and replacements are expensive (about $75-$80 for a complete set @ Adorama). Also, as someone else asked, the US model does not print CD/DVD media.

Wanting to consolidate desk space, I bought this based on reviews on other sites because of it's photo printing quality and film scanner capability. I don't print many photos preferring to post them on a website, but when I do print something, this does not disappoint. I am also currently scanning negatives of pics I took in Vietnam 40 years ago and so far so good, so except for the ink issue which has been well documented, I'm very happy with my purchase.

I think printers are an over-looked aspect of photography, and as photographers we should probably be doing more actual printing instead of pixel-peeping and flickr-ing. Kudos on embracing and reviewing printers on your website!

I applaud your efforts to address another aspect of photo "production". Dismiss the naysayers/critics as this is the first review in this catagory type and it will (no doubt) improve with time...just as have the other product types that are covered by this website by the reviewers.

Jim

"Multifunctional" printer test? I've never heard of a "multifunctional" printer. The one I have is a "multifunction" printer. Not trying to be a grammar policeman, but a mistake like that cheapens the website. Sigh.

I would very much like a test of the CD/DVD media printing with respect to speed, quality, etc. Too many reviews fail to test this function and therefore the purchaser has no reliable information upon which to base a purchase which includes the need to print on C/DVD media.

This review is far below DPR quality...

fotopixel

The most vexing thing about our Epson Stylus Photo RX500 is its ink consumption. We rarely use it for photo printing anymore, but it goes through huge amounts of color ink just printing pages of B&W text--and won't print at all if one of the color cartridges is empty or missing.

So, I would like to know: does a particular all-in-one printer consume color ink when printing text? Will it print text with color cartidges removed?

Rick

Interesting! Seems to be a Very unfair review. am I missing something???

You compared a [US street price] $109 HP against a Epson $171 and a Canon [indicated the best] at $390.

Why not compare a cheap Canon against an expensive HP and Epson and see what happens then.

I like the printer test, but why didn't you try to calibrate two printers that came out best, or why test the prints under some intense UV-light. This is a bit superficial compered to your camera tests. Also the resolution is not real, but achieved by reducing droplet size. Which one has the best real world resolution and the least dithering. I missed a lot of information.

Anyway, congratulation with a good start

Bravo for the printer test, more spotlight is needed on products that promote the rest of the art of photography.

C

Where is Vincent?
It just struck me: Vincent is the master of the "interactive review," as anyone who has visited his site would know.

Would someone from DPR invite him to comment here? He is both diplomatic and matter of fact.

In short: perfect!

What a helpful review! Just as I was starting to think "Maybe I should get a photo printer..." dpreview has the best reviews out there. Very even handed.

Thanks!

Addendum to previous post:

Also, since this is a "multi-function printer" test, the paper used for the text printing evaluations should be described. Essential is one is to use it as a *multi function* printer. (I know, this strays from a photo website, but still.)

In keeping with this sentiment, perhaps there should be information on stationary one might find from common (meaning: largest) suppliers. Yes-this would open a HUGE area, and not photo related. But still-you have waded into the waters of text printing. (For example, does all cotton stock work best for inkjet text printing, mixed stock, inkjet optimized stock, laid surfaces, the list goes on.)

A bit churlish, all of that, keep up the good work. More please.

1. US Market and CD-R/DVD printing: Does the Canon offer disc printing? Generally, in the US market, disc printing has been pretty much exclusively available on Epson printers. There was an HP in the past that offered disc printing.

2. A requirement: We really need to know how color was handled:
A. Managed image software, and what it was
or
B. Managed printer supplied software

I feel this review was a little too basic to be of value.

However, I'm enthused about the reappearance of Vincent Oliver-and I think he is one of the ideal people to do scanner and printer reviews. Those unfamiliar with his work are encouraged to visit his web site, or look around here for earlier contributions (if they are still here, somewhere).

*Useless review*
This sort of rubbish is FAR below DPR standards.

You left off several rather important criteria.
How about print quality from a printer?
How about cost per page? This is the tie breaker for most printer purchases. For example, the Canon & Epson a3+ printers have nearly identical out put (edge to Epson), but the cost of ownership of the epson is 3-4 times as high.
Actual print speed vs claimed?
Speed in other areas (power on, etc)
Is there a power consumption difference? Might be useful for small shops/home use where the internet capable printer is likely to stay on 24/7.

All you covered was scanning. I mean.. yippy, skippy! Scanning is the least used function in the digital age. Nice to have for older stuff, but this is not "what to with old analog" photo review. It is *DIGITAL* Photo review!

ps: how about more reviews relevant to this title. Why even bother branching out when lens and camera reviews only cover 10-20% of available models?

Nice review. I have used canon and epson printers and the only problem I had was the clotting of the printhead after not using the printer for a few days. It was so bad that in the end I switched from epson to canon. Of course something not mentioned in a test like this but a big spoiler in use I can garantee you.

Epson PX720WD = Epson Artisan 725?

And what about more lens reviews? I think currently the number of lens reviews on this site is ridiculously low...

My HP C310A also came with a duplex attachment - your review says it won't do duplex. Your specs say it doesn't have an ethernet attachment - while this is true, it does connect via wifi.

In one place in your review you say it won't use compact flash cards but in another you say it does. It does not accept compact flash cards.

Gidday Vincent

All round, a good review. Good to see printers make it onto the scene at last.

I have the Canon MG6150, and my only complaint is that the print cartridges are minute (9 mls?), and the printer drinks it like an alcoholic during happy hour. The cartridges are also very expensive here in Oz.

Ours is used as a general purpose network printer/scanner and copier.

We have an HP LaserJet 5P as the general B&W network printer, and an Epson R3880 for photographic printing.

The cost of the ink for the MG6150 is going to drive me to after-market inks, something I have never done before. Our old (dead) Canon iP4000R had cartridges with about 50% more capacity; costing only 68% as much as those for the MG6150 for OEM inks.

In summary, the MG6150 is very flexible and produces excellent quality photo output; but is as expensive as all get-out to run. I estimate about 40c/page for normal printing, compared with around 2c/page for the LaserJet ...

regards, john

What I miss in the review is some info on how the photos were printed -- using factory defaults, canned profiles, or maybe they were profiled individually? I can't seem to spot that bit of *essential* info.

Nicely handled review... although cost should be a factor - my quick google shopping search indicates that the winning printer is also the most expensive!

My HP C310a has double sided printing while the specs here says it doesn't.

I was also suprised by the verdict for the monochrome print. This week I had to make some "emergency" prints for an exhibition submission (my Epson 3800 has a blockage) and I was simply amazed at the neutrality and tonality of the prints that my C310a produced. Perhaps there is sample variation?

Anyway, I just wanted to provide a "user view" of this particular printer, which I bought because it supports AirPrint.

Nice idea to have printer reviews. Also good that you seem to be editing Vincent's syntax, which can sometimes be a little wayward. That's not to say that his site is not well worth visiting, though.

Thought this was a great review. it was short, gave lots of information and was well written.

Would be nice to see other reviews in this style

It would be great to include the printing costs into the review.

Thanks for including this horizon into dp’s field of view and also that you carry on your good traditional group tests in compacts.
Best,

Hynek

Why didn't you include any of the Kodak multifunctional printers? Kodak's claims sound good such as cheaper ink, pigmented ink that doesn't clog often, easy to change cartridges and print head. On the other hand, some user reviews posted on the Kodak web site are mixed. Some say they work well and others say you have to change ink cartridges too often, and some have had to change the print heads often and there were complaints about the Wi-Fi. What is the truth?

Excellent idea for reviews - but did i miss the key item of interest - Cost/page, i would certainly tolerate 10% less performance for 50% less cost.

After having Epson inkjets for a few years, and then Canon Pixma printers for the last couple, there's no way I'd go back to an Epson. Maybe they have refined their printers in recent models, but the Epson printers I had were messy, prone to blockages, and unreliable. The Canon printers have been the opposite and "just work". YMMV, obviously.