"Photo" printers cheaper than "non-photo" printers?

I'm looking for a "non-photo" printer and from what I'm seeing, for the most
part, non photo printers are more expensive than photo printers. Why?
Monica

"Monica" wrote in message
news:akiee.15829$yV4.6261@okepread03...
I'm looking for a "non-photo" printer and from what I'm seeing, for the
most
part, non photo printers are more expensive than photo printers. Why?

I'm doing the same because I already have an Epson 2100 for printing photos.

I think the reason for this strange price difference is because they are
aimed at office use rather than home use. Check the "duty cycle" figures in
the specs. This is the number of pages per month the printer is designed to
handle (a measure of how rugged it is).

Monica wrote:

I'm looking for a "non-photo" printer and from what I'm seeing, for the most
part, non photo printers are more expensive than photo printers. Why?
Monica



Because they are usually business printers and made for speed with
reasonable quality. The HP 1200 is one of the models out there.

There are a few reasons non-photo printers are more costly at original
acquisition.

1) as mentioned they are usually designed for more durability, ease of
use, etc, because they will be moving a LOT more paper through them.
Most of the printing will be text or small graphics, meaning paper is
flying through. Also, speed is more of an issue with businesses. But
the main reason, is because the ink sales are considered in the return
the company gets.

Nonfat printers use less ink, even on photos than photo printers do,
because of the light dye load inks used (and used and used) in the photo
printers, and also, the non-photo printer may see a lot more text and
small graphic printing, again, that doesn't burn through nearly as much
ink as photo images and all the tests that often accompany them.

Lastly, the company hopes to sell specialty paper to the photo image
printer owner, while the business user often just needs cheap bond,
again no money being regenerated that way.

Art

CWatters wrote:

"Monica" wrote in message
news:akiee.15829$yV4.6261@okepread03...

I'm looking for a "non-photo" printer and from what I'm seeing, for the

most

part, non photo printers are more expensive than photo printers. Why?


I'm doing the same because I already have an Epson 2100 for printing photos.

I think the reason for this strange price difference is because they are
aimed at office use rather than home use. Check the "duty cycle" figures in
the specs. This is the number of pages per month the printer is designed to
handle (a measure of how rugged it is).

Monica wrote:

I'm looking for a "non-photo" printer and from what I'm seeing, for the most
part, non photo printers are more expensive than photo printers. Why?
Monica

Since when?
Most photo printers (6 colors or more) are at least $50-75 even on
clearance, the non-photo printers (4 colors or less) can go all the way
down to free after rebate (or typically, $20-30).
www.fatwallet.com/c/18/
www.shopper.com

With laser printers (eg. Samusung recently) on sale at $79, there's
the price drop across the board as China starts making all of these items.

It's gotten to the point, honestly, where it's buy & replace the
printer when the toner/ink runs out!

(eg. print through the 3000+pages on the Samsung laser, it's cheaper
to buy a new printer than the toner!)

(eg. buy a new inkjet for $20-50, and it's cheaper to buy a new
printer for the same price than a set of cartridges!)