[blktlr]

I'm looking for a good scanner and possibly a laser printer as well. I'm willing to consider multi-function ink as I don't want to spend too much and would not mind being able to print color photos. What models should I look at, which should I avoid? Should I stay away from multi-function or are there some good machines out there? I don't need a fax. Planning to use scanner mostly for screen/web. I have an HP 5150 printer right now which I'll probably sell or give to my brother, so I'll be looking for a printer with at least that quality and speed. Small foot print is a plus. Full compatibility with OS X (through USB) and Photoshop is a must.

Thanks for your input,

-blake.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

All in ones are terrible for the Mac as the software for them sucks.

Your only real choice is an Epson if that is what you want.

[Spheric Harlot]

I'm considering the new Epson CX5400 scanner/printer/copier to replace my dead SC740i.

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/c...p;oid=36478881

It does stand-alone photocopying, which is nice, and I do find a need for the occasional scanner...

Specs look good, individual ink replacement is good, and I liked the SC740...

any reason not to splurge the €140?

Is it still possible to use non-Epson ink, or have they changed that?

-s*

[Graymalkin]

I really like my Canon LiDE 20 scanner. The CanoScan software truly sucks but once the TWAIN drivers are installed it is possible to scan directly from Photoshop and other TWAIN capable apps. I have no had luck using it with Image Capture but I really haven't put that much effort into it. All I needed was scanning through Photoshop. The scan quality is really nice. I haven't run into any problems so far with it besides Canon's crappy scan software.

For printers you might want to look at the Brother HL-1440 or HP LaserJet 1012. Both are monochrome laser printers that work pretty well in OSX. I've got the LJ 1012 and I really like it. The print quality is superb and I find that it prints fast enough for my needs. It takes a few seconds from a cold start to print but once it gets going it is as fast as is advertised. Support for it through Print Center is really good and I haven't run into any snags thus far.

I would advise against AiO systems simply because they're rarely the best tool for the job. In order to get a good AiO printer/scanner/fax/espresso system you need to fork over a lot of money. Good individual components to fill those roles will likely come out to be far less expensive. I can have my Powerbook act as a fax simply by plugging it into a phone jack and my scanner combined with my printer will easily act as a copier if I need it to.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
I would advise against AiO systems simply because they're rarely the best tool for the job. In order to get a good AiO printer/scanner/fax/espresso system you need to fork over a lot of money. Good individual components to fill those roles will likely come out to be far less expensive. I can have my Powerbook act as a fax simply by plugging it into a phone jack and my scanner combined with my printer will easily act as a copier if I need it to.

Yes, that put me off until now, too, BUT:

A moderately decent scanner and a usable inkjet will run you somewhere around $100-150 easily.

And then, just using the setup as a copier is annoying: open scan software, scan, save, open in graphics program, check page setup and sizing, print. Add "turn on computer" to that in some cases, as the iMac I'll be hooking up to isn't on 24/7.

The Epson units function as stand-alone copiers. This is the primary argument in favor of AiO.

Also, I was actually considering the CX4600, not the CX5400, but that's so new that there are no specs online to be found. Supposedly, it's a lot smaller.

-s*

[skybolt]

Minor note to Spheric Harlot's comment about using scanner as copier. On the Canon, I can scan directly to the printer, so no saving, etc. Works just like a copier (albeit a bit slower).

[tooki]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I'm considering the new Epson CX5400 scanner/printer/copier to replace my dead SC740i....Is it still possible to use non-Epson ink, or have they changed that?

I wholeheartedly recommend against all-in-one gadgets. You are not getting the best quality in them, and if one part breaks, you have to replace the whole thing. Buying separately lets you pick and choose the best printer and scanner for your needs, and if one goes, you just replace it.

No, it's not possible to use non-Epson ink, theoretically. They have microchips on their cartridges to prevent it. Some third parties have reverse-engineered the chips, though. Dunno how well they work.

That said, I (and many others here) will advise you to consider a Canon inkjet printer. Canon brand ink is almost as cheap as no-name Epson ink, and they use no chips, so if you go with no-name Canon ink (which is dirt cheap online), it will work (guarantees of print quality notwithstanding). The Canon's heads won't clog like Epson's do. And if they did, the print head is cheaply replaceable (and covered under warranty!).

Epson and Canon both make excellent scanners.

HP still makes great lasers.

The ONLY reason I see for buying an all-in-one unit is a) easy faxing, in models that do that, 2) if you make lots of copies.

If you just want to scan into the computer, and print from the computer, just get separate units. Please.

tooki

[jboeskool]

Just want to place an extra nail in the Ai1 coffin. At work, somebody bought an expensive ($300 or so) Ai1 printer/faxer/scanner/copier. Wanted to use it with an older indigo Imac (probably 350mghz, with 64meg RAM). The drivers for this beast were so huge and memory intensive that he got a "not enough memory to open this disk" message when he tried to install them. Had to go to virtual memory (ah.. remember the days of virtual memory?) just to open the darn cd before he could even do an install.

Needless to say, it performed miserably in terms of print processing time. I wish I could tell you which brand it was, but I don't remember. I think it was an HP. I know it ended up back in it's box eventually, waiting to be sold to the next victim.

I realize that newer computers might not have the memory issues, but it would make sense to me to use a regular printer as your workhorse on your desktop, and either have a scanner stashed for when you need it (they are not expensive), or maybe a cheap AO1 stashed if you really need something that will make a photo copy.

[OreoCookie]

I would consider a Brother Laser all-in-one.
The quality of the scanner is not as good as for a stand-alone scanner (as pointed out here numerous times), but it all depends on what you do. If you basically want to scan pictures that you had developed in a lab, 300 dpis are plenty, because the commercial printers (in the photo labs) have a resolution of 200-300 dpi.

[MindFad]

It's all about the Canon gear. Canon LiDE 30 and Canon i860 on my desk. Great stuff.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by MindFad:
It's all about the Canon gear. Canon LiDE 30 and Canon i860 on my desk. Great stuff.

So why are the canon scanners so thin and the Epsons 10x taller? Do they use a totally different technology?

Also, do those copy, print buttons etc. on the front of the Canon Scanners work on a Mac?

[tooki]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
So why are the canon scanners so thin and the Epsons 10x taller? Do they use a totally different technology?

Not totally different, but substantially. Canon uses LED light sources (instead of the usual fluorescent tube), and of course very small lenses (as do most cheap scanners).

The tradeoff is that larger scanners have the potential for (but not guarantee of!) higher quality. I believe that the Canons also have very shallow depth of field -- a non-issue for scanning flat originals, but for scanning three-dimensional objects, a deeper depth of field may be useful.

Also, do those copy, print buttons etc. on the front of the Canon Scanners work on a Mac?

Yes.

tooki

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by tooki:
Not totally different, but substantially. Canon uses LED light sources (instead of the usual fluorescent tube), and of course very small lenses (as do most cheap scanners).

The tradeoff is that larger scanners have the potential for (but not guarantee of!) higher quality. I believe that the Canons also have very shallow depth of field -- a non-issue for scanning flat originals, but for scanning three-dimensional objects, a deeper depth of field may be useful.

Yes.

tooki

Thought so, I heard that LED scanners give things a strange blue colour and are not as colour accurate as fluorescent scanners. Also, at over $200 beans I wouldn't call Canon scanners cheap as for less you can get a fluorescent scanner.

[MindFad]

LiDE 30 was only $80 when I got it. Quality is great, too. Another plus is that it doesn't need a power supply, since it gets its power from the USB.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Thought so, I heard that LED scanners give things a strange blue colour and are not as colour accurate as fluorescent scanners. Also, at over $200 beans I wouldn't call Canon scanners cheap as for less you can get a fluorescent scanner.

Not all the Canon scanners use CIS/LED technology - just the really thin models (the ones with just 2 numerals in the model no.). The larger, more expensive models (with 4-numeral model nos.) that you're referring to use regular CCS technology with flourescent light sources.

The thin CIS/LED scanners do an excellent job, their main limitations being limited depth of field and speed (they're bus-powered, and slow). LED light sources are more stable and long-lasting than flourescent (Nikon uses them in their best film scanners), but some think they have more color issues, so it's a trade-off. I'd buy one of the CIS/LED Canons in a minute for light-duty scanning, but for heavy-duty use I'd get something faster.

[tooki]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Thought so, I heard that LED scanners give things a strange blue colour and are not as colour accurate as fluorescent scanners. Also, at over $200 beans I wouldn't call Canon scanners cheap as for less you can get a fluorescent scanner.

As zigzag said, if anything, LED is a potentially superior light source. If there was a blue cast, then the scanner was probably being operated wrong.

As for overall color accuracy, the light source is far from being the only component! The scanning sensor is very important, and more expensive scanners just tend to have better ones, regardless of light source.

tooki

[Frumpy]

Has anyone had any experiences since the last post in this forum with the Epson Stylus CX4600? I bought one today, but can't stop staring at it....wondering...SHOULD I open this?

[tomb]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
I really like my Canon LiDE 20 scanner. The CanoScan software truly sucks but once the TWAIN drivers are installed it is possible to scan directly from Photoshop and other TWAIN capable apps. I have no had luck using it with Image Capture but I really haven't put that much effort into it. All I needed was scanning through Photoshop. The scan quality is really nice. I haven't run into any problems so far with it besides Canon's crappy scan software.

For printers you might want to look at the Brother HL-1440 or HP LaserJet 1012. Both are monochrome laser printers that work pretty well in OSX. I've got the LJ 1012 and I really like it. The print quality is superb and I find that it prints fast enough for my needs. It takes a few seconds from a cold start to print but once it gets going it is as fast as is advertised. Support for it through Print Center is really good and I haven't run into any snags thus far.

I would advise against AiO systems simply because they're rarely the best tool for the job. In order to get a good AiO printer/scanner/fax/espresso system you need to fork over a lot of money. Good individual components to fill those roles will likely come out to be far less expensive. I can have my Powerbook act as a fax simply by plugging it into a phone jack and my scanner combined with my printer will easily act as a copier if I need it to.

do you run the 1012 wirelessly? does it work well?

thanks,

t

[SSharon]

I just bought the Brother HL-1450 laser printer for just over a hundred bucks and it has worked perfectly for me. Its fast, installed very quickly and easily with new drivers from Brother's website and it has 8mb of ram not 2mb like some other cheap laser printers.

Aside from that let me mention that it is replacing my Epson stylus photo 820 that came for free. I have always like epson but no more with that junk printer. Only epson ink, clogging heads, slow, loud, gulps ink, paper misfeeds, pretty much everything that can go wrong. So I miss printing in color now but as a college student printing papers all day the laser printer was well worth it.

So to the original poster, consider your needs well. Multifunctions may save space and even a few bucks but if they don't play well with mac and if they don't work well to begin with its not worth the headache.

[Frumpy]

Well, after having the Epson Stylus CX4600 for about a week, I can honestly give this product a fantastic review. Printing 4x6's from iPhoto look fantastic, scanning is a sinch, and I can use it for my media reader as well! Nice product, and Epson even includes FULL ink cartridges! Very spiffy feature in this day and age. For $150 - $30 (MIR), it was a great buy from the local Circuit City.