Resolved Best color laser printer for photos (was: HP Color LaserJet M856x (review))

[ZombiePhysicist]

UPDATE 2024-08-18
Another user also got an HP supporting 4800 ImageREt and also had some good results per his review/post of his HP MFP M776dn.

UPDATE 2023-10-19
A Multifunction (MFC) version, the M880z, of the printer with 4800 ImageREt tech can be found here. And the cheapest 4800 ImageREt color laser printer, the M751dn, we've found can be found here for around 2800.

UPDATE 2023-2-19 (first solution)
So after a lot of research, it turns out that the HP Color LaserJet 856x and/or likely any HP laser printer that does 4800 ImageREt tech prints pretty well. Review of which is here. Also, here are some good color laser photo/gloss/paper options.


Original Post
I'm looking for recommendations for a good color laser printer that will also do a 'decent' job with photos. I tried this in the accessory section with no response and am realizing this is more of a “pro” question. Anyway, I can take a plain printer, or multifunction--I'm indifferent to that. And while I probably would prefer tabloid size abilities, regular letter size might work too. So, thanks for any suggestions!

Anyway, below are some things I've found with some comments regarding each (kind of listed from best to worst options):

1. Xerox VersaLink C505, $2300, 1200x2400dpi, letter, multifunction
2. Xerox VersaLink® C7000, $1800, 1200x2400dpi, tabloid, printer only (seems like a bargain of the bunch, but reviews are dreadful, but not sure I trust reviews of random/non-pro people)
3. Ricoh IM C8000, $$$ (probably $10k+), 2400x4800dpi!, tabloid, multifunction
4. Xerox VersaLink® C9000 (seems like the replacement/multifunction version of the C7000 line above, not sure what extra it brings for the cost), ~$4500, 1200x2400, tabloid, multifunction
5. Xerox® Color C60/C70 Pro Printer (now 4 years old), $$$ (probably around $10k+ new, and around ebay used for ~$5k), 2400x2400dpi noting (Superb image quality: 2400 x 2400 dpi, Emulsion Aggregation (EA) Low Melt Toner, see PDF spec sheet), tabloid+, multifunction+
6. Xerox® PrimeLink® C9065/C9070 Printer (seems old model), $$$ (probably around $20k+ new, and around ebay used for ~15k), 2400x2400dpi, tabloid+, multifunction+
7. Lexmark CS921de (seems like a newish line), ~2900, 1200x1200dpi (probably too little for photo quality), printer only

Would appreciate comments/suggestions from those that found a good color laser that does a good job with photos, or any suggestions!



TLDR thoughts you can skip but gives some context of what I'm looking for:

I know color laser won't do photos as well as inkjet, but I want nothing to do with inkjets ever again. I remember Tektronix, later Xerox, made these color ink stick printers and they printed out this kind of magazine-glossy great prints and were good for photos, but they are no more.​

​

My current Brother MFCL9570CDW has bleh output for photos and prints at 2400x600dpi, so I'm guessing I will need at least 2400x1200dpi to get something better/more decent. As such I dont think the 1200x1200dpi Lexmark will cut it. Also, brother has kind of stopped supporting Macs in that they no longer provide drivers and rely on apple's AirPrint drivers getting things right. However, things like selecting 'standard/fine' quality dont appear, and as such, I'm done with brother.​

​

Anyway, after doing a bunch of research it seems there are very few options out there. Xerox has a few printers that are 1200x2400dpi (and it's annoying, but almost no one shows their DPI without you having to go dig for them). They have two, probably very expensive, models that do 2400x2400 and seems to do a similar magazine-glossy like output, the C60/C70.​

​

The only other model I found that is even more impressive at least regarding DPI is the Ricoh that does 4800x2400dpi. Although, perhaps there is a model that does lower resolution but does more bits/pixel (there is one Xerox model, the Xerox Versalink C405 DN, that claims to do 8bits per pixel, but with only 600dpi seems like the photo quality still wouldnt be there and youd be better with 2400x1200 dpi).​

​

Those three printers (items 3, 5 and 6 in my list above) seem too big, but if forced, I guess I could get them, but I'm hoping to find something a little less like a large fridge laying on it's side, and hoping more for 'mini fridge' levels.​

​

​

​

I tried finding good reviews on such things, but any reviews are useless as they do not really looking at these printers for photo capability. I'd love to get output of standard prints and photos from a bunch of these to see how they do in real-world/average situations.​

Thanks again for any thoughts/suggestions.

 

[MisterAndrew]

For black & white a Brother laser printer is great. But for color you might want to consider an Epson EcoTank printer. That would be good for office type color prints. For photos you're really going to want a dedicated professional photo printer such as the Epson P900. The European model has refillable ink cartridges.

If you really need to get by with just one printer I suggest the Epson EcoTank Photo ET-8550. That will do office type jobs and decent photos, but the ink doesn't have the longevity of the high quality pigment inks for the professional photo printers.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Thanks, but I'm just not going to use ink for my primary use. I might still get one for when I want to print really good photos, but that is rare. In the mean time, it seems like high resolution color laser printers have fallen off the map of pros in the Mac world. :/

 

[MacPoulet]

+1 to the Phaser solid inks, they were phenomenal. We sold them 20 years ago and I used Them to print my media kits for my comedy troupe. They still look new today. The texture had a bit of a waxy feel and the sheen was gorgeous. Plus they had free black ink for the life of the printer. I was able to get a free one ten years back but had to give it to a friend when I moved.

only problem with them is that you have to constantly use them or else the print head will clog up. So for occasional runs, they’re not good. But if you need like 20,000 prints a month, they were excellent.

I’ll check with the tech at work as to what colour laser would be good (I work in a Fine Arts faculty) and report back.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

+1 to the Phaser solid inks, they were phenomenal. We sold them 20 years ago and I used Them to print my media kits for my comedy troupe. They still look new today. The texture had a bit of a waxy feel and the sheen was gorgeous. Plus they had free black ink for the life of the printer. I was able to get a free one ten years back but had to give it to a friend when I moved.

only problem with them is that you have to constantly use them or else the print head will clog up. So for occasional runs, they’re not good. But if you need like 20,000 prints a month, they were excellent.

I’ll check with the tech at work as to what colour laser would be good (I work in a Fine Arts faculty) and report back.

‘Thanks so much. Much appreciated!

 

[chrfr]

It's just the nature of color laser printing that they can't do true photo quality printing. Any professional printing is done with inkjets.
If you're not doing that much photo printing, just have that done by a service somewhere which has an appropriate printer, and get yourself a laser printer.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

It's just the nature of color laser printing that they can't do true photo quality printing. Any professional printing is done with inkjets.
If you're not doing that much photo printing, just have that done by a service somewhere which has an appropriate printer, and get yourself a laser printer.

I listed 3 color laser printers that do photo quality. They are big and expensive but they do do it.

 

[chrfr]

I listed 3 color laser printers that do photo quality. They are big and expensive but they do do it.

No, it’s just a fundamental limitation of laser printing that it is inferior to inkjet for photo printing. There’s far more to it than just resolution. Inkjets have much wider color gamuts, more consistent color reproduction, and print with finer detail than a laser.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

No, it’s just a fundamental limitation of laser printing that it is inferior to inkjet for photo printing. There’s far more to it than just resolution. Inkjets have much wider color gamuts, more consistent color reproduction, and print with finer detail than a laser.

is it really? So your magic ink is superior to dye sublimation? To the production printers putting out magazines?

Did you even check out the c60/c70?

All of which is neither here nor there. I don’t want an inkjet printer. That’s the point. What is the best I can get from a color laser. Let’s assume you’re right in your ink superiority, it’s still an interesting question, at least for me, what is the best color laser photo printer. The answer of an inkjet is incorrect for that question as part of the question is, no inkjets.

 

[MacPoulet]

‘Thanks so much. Much appreciated!

Okay so I checked with the techs, and while I don’t have a definite answer, I may have a lead. When we got our massive Epson large scale printer, our supplier tried to pitch us on a Canon laser instead, and I think it was this one: https://www.canon.ca/en/product?nam...s/Printers/Large-Format-Printing/Graphic-Arts

Gonna try asking the supplier to verify. As an aside, our new Epson with its 11 massive ink tanks has been a bit of a dog compared to previous models and we’re constantly needing to unclog the heads, even with regular use. Previous one never had that issue, so looks like we got a bad one.

For the occasional colour photo, I honestly just use our multi-function Ricoh, and while not as nice as a dedicated photo printer, it’s results aren’t terrible.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Okay so I checked with the techs, and while I don’t have a definite answer, I may have a lead. When we got our massive Epson large scale printer, our supplier tried to pitch us on a Canon laser instead, and I think it was this one: https://www.canon.ca/en/product?nam...s/Printers/Large-Format-Printing/Graphic-Arts

Gonna try asking the supplier to verify. As an aside, our new Epson with its 11 massive ink tanks has been a bit of a dog compared to previous models and we’re constantly needing to unclog the heads, even with regular use. Previous one never had that issue, so looks like we got a bad one.

For the occasional colour photo, I honestly just use our multi-function Ricoh, and while not as nice as a dedicated photo printer, it’s results aren’t terrible.

So that printer looks awesome, but it's inkjet. Thanks for the followup/suggestion.

It's interesting you use a Ricoh. The highest resolution color laser I found was the Ricoh. Which model do you use?

I have since found out that the Xerox printers that do 2400x2400 are digital press machines. So they cost about $15k, they print full bleed, and are excellent at printing photos. All good (well except the price). But the problem is it's a digital press which means maintenance on it is a nightmare. You basically need a service contract. I'm going to guess that amazing Ricoh that does 4800x2400dpi is also a digital press but will check.

Which means the Xerox c8000/9000 with glossy photo paper is probalby the best I can do at 2400x1200. I havent seen the output in person. I hear it's ok. Not amazing, but serviceable.

 

[FreakinEurekan]

Unless you have a HUGE budget, you’re going to get mediocre color photo prints. If you do have a huge budget, you’ll get slightly-less-mediocre color photo prints. Bottom line: Don’t buy a laser printer for its color photo print capability. Buy it for speed, for paper handling, for whatever other features you need.

I say this as someone who also hates using inkjets and doesn’t own one. My Epson WF 4600-series color laser does what I need - I don’t print many photos, and if I do I know what to expect

 

[MacPoulet]

So that printer looks awesome, but it's inkjet. Thanks for the followup/suggestion.

It's interesting you use a Ricoh. The highest resolution color laser I found was the Ricoh. Which model do you use?

I have since found out that the Xerox printers that do 2400x2400 are digital press machines. So they cost about $15k, they print full bleed, and are excellent at printing photos. All good (well except the price). But the problem is it's a digital press which means maintenance on it is a nightmare. You basically need a service contract. I'm going to guess that amazing Ricoh that does 4800x2400dpi is also a digital press but will check.

Which means the Xerox c8000/9000 with glossy photo paper is probalby the best I can do at 2400x1200. I havent seen the output in person. I hear it's ok. Not amazing, but serviceable.

Nuts. I thought it was laser because it says toner pearls under consumables.

Our Ricoh is the MP C3004ex. If I need anything larger or nicer, then I let the printshop on campus do it.

Have you contacted Xerox? They have a pretty good sales team, at least in Canada. I’d sent them sample images and they printed those on a variety of printers and mailed them to me so I could see the difference.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Unless you have a HUGE budget, you’re going to get mediocre color photo prints. If you do have a huge budget, you’ll get slightly-less-mediocre color photo prints. Bottom line: Don’t buy a laser printer for its color photo print capability. Buy it for speed, for paper handling, for whatever other features you need.

I say this as someone who also hates using inkjets and doesn’t own one. My Epson WF 4600-series color laser does what I need - I don’t print many photos, and if I do I know what to expect

I completely agree (the one exception was the old and now defunct ink stick technology). All I'm trying to do is get the least worst photo capable color laser printer. That said, I do think the digital press stuff makes what I would call 'good' photos, but then you need a team to help support that, so hard pass. So right now, from the research I've done the least worst photo color laser printer (for mere mortals) seems to be the Xerox c8000/c9000 series.

The Xerox c60/c70 digital press does seem to do good photos. I'm sure many inkjet printers will do better still, but it's magazine quality stuff. I imagine the Ricoh IM c8000 would be even better still.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Nuts. I thought it was laser because it says toner pearls under consumables.

Our Ricoh is the MP C3004ex. If I need anything larger or nicer, then I let the printshop on campus do it.

Have you contacted Xerox? They have a pretty good sales team, at least in Canada. I’d sent them sample images and they printed those on a variety of printers and mailed them to me so I could see the difference.

I'm super glad you shared it though. It is an interesting hybrid kind of thing. Those toner pellets are very interesting. But I dont like the inkjet like moving print head because it has nozzles that can get clogged. Also, it's only 600dpi. But, the tech is super interesting and I might consider it for another application I have. Very cool find/tech!

And yes, I have been speaking with their sales people. Very helpful. They told me about the digital press (c60) and that it basically requires a service contract to keep that thing running. I don't mind paying the crazy high purchase price (around $15k), but I cannot deal with needing service people come and work on the printer (beyond even the price), it seems too high maintenance. If you have a large department where you need service people there regularly anyway, it probably is a great option.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Here is the tech on that printer, it looks like it was originally Oce tech:

CrystalPoint

Combines advantages of LED and inkjet for high-quality prints.

cpp.canon

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

So did a little more research and the Ricoh IM C8000 is not a digital press, just a high end laser printer that does 4800x2400 resolution. I'm trying to get print samples and pricing on it, but they annoyingly only want to deal with businesses that do volume. Seriously, please take my money. These corporate brick people that can't go outside the lines drawn by some moron... but I digress.

So this may be the best you can do. Will be interesting to see/get a print out. Wonder if anyone has had experience with it.

https://ricohconfigurator.com

Use this tool to properly configure a RICOH IM C6500 or IM C8000 multifunction system. These Intelligent Devices come with a range of features to meet the needs of the modern digital workplace.

ricohconfigurator.com

 

[orionquest]

Printing is all about volume. For this use case the occasional photo print, you don't really specify how much or what sizes you require. So without further details just keep what you have and just go to walmart, costco or whatever large size box store who offers photo lab prints for the time you need it. Heck I believe they have online system to upload and order them.

Photo printing is more then just resolution, it's about dot structure, colour reproduction, and paper, which is why bubble/inkjets are better then lasers for this task. Commercial printing (as mentioned magazines) is a completely different process.

Since injet is apparently off the table, maybe a Dye Sub from DNP might work for you. These are modern Dye Subs not like the old Phaser mentioned (which were terrible most of the time). There is a DNP model which can produce various sizes from a single width roll. But again we are at a volume issue since Dye Sub work off a media kit consumable able to produce many copies off a roll, if you need various sizes larger then the roll, you buy more media kits sizes, which means under utilization. At least with Dye Subs if you leave it around for a month or so, the kits don't go bad like a inject which can dry out and screw up your printer.

BTW Dye sub is the type of print you would get from a photo lab, they just have a much bigger machine.

My knowledge comes from almost 20 year working in the printing trade. I would never own a printer for home just not worth it anymore. Business needs are different, which is why I printed a lot of my occasional documents at the office

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Printing is all about volume. For this use case the occasional photo print, you don't really specify how much or what sizes you require. So without further details just keep what you have and just go to walmart, costco or whatever large size box store who offers photo lab prints for the time you need it. Heck I believe they have online system to upload and order them.

Photo printing is more then just resolution, it's about dot structure, colour reproduction, and paper, which is why bubble/inkjets are better then lasers for this task. Commercial printing (as mentioned magazines) is a completely different process.

Since injet is apparently off the table, maybe a Dye Sub from DNP might work for you. These are modern Dye Subs not like the old Phaser mentioned (which were terrible most of the time). There is a DNP model which can produce various sizes from a single width roll. But again we are at a volume issue since Dye Sub work off a media kit consumable able to produce many copies off a roll, if you need various sizes larger then the roll, you buy more media kits sizes, which means under utilization. At least with Dye Subs if you leave it around for a month or so, the kits don't go bad like a inject which can dry out and screw up your printer.

BTW Dye sub is the type of print you would get from a photo lab, they just have a much bigger machine.

My knowledge comes from almost 20 year working in the printing trade. I would never own a printer for home just not worth it anymore. Business needs are different, which is why I printed a lot of my occasional documents at the office

Thanks, for me printing is not about volume. It's about convenience and quality. I'm not worried about the most cost effective solution. For me, my time is money, and kind of dwarfs the other considerations. And I do not have the time/tolerance to send out to a service for the occasional print.

Dye subs are great. And I haven't kept up with them. But if I recall they were a maintenance headache. But maybe things have changed. They also were incapable of doing any real business printing. Do you have some nice Dye subs you like? Maybe that tech has advanced a good bit?

Yea, I hear you. Your use case and mine are different. I need something that is close to zero hassle, that I will tend to myself. That will tend to always work when I need, which is rarely. The price doesnt matter too much. And I get it. I GET IT. Color laser is not ideal or maybe not even good for photos at all. But all the printers that are good at photos, for me, are a total pain in the posterior and I want nothing to do with them.

Can we now move on from the why dont you just get an inkjet... Answer: I DO NOT WANT ONE. It's a hassle that always lets me down at the most inopportune time and I have zero tolerance for it.

So given that, what is the next best option. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

That's why it's interesting to me you do not like the Textronix/phaser ink sticks. I really liked them. I thought the output was great. Was it as great as a dedicated photo printer, nope. But it was a great option that did business stuff well enough, and photos well enough. To me the big problem with that printer was if you didnt do a lot of prints, it wasted a ton of ink stick. It warmed up and had to melt down a lot of ink to get ready to print, and it was just wasteful. So I get for your use case why you probably didnt like it. For mine, it was pretty a pretty good option.

Anyway, my current theory is that the Ricoh doing 4800x2400dpi (if obtainable) should be pretty good. It's kind of between that and the 2400x1200 Xerox c8000/9000. Everything else out there is a sea of 1200x1200 business printers. The Xerox seems to have some slick finish to their toner that might actually be nice for photos too.

I guess my use case is fringe, but I find this is actually kind of an interesting research project.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Small update, so the Ricoh IM C6500 goes for about ~15k, and the IM C8000 for about $20k (give or take a few thousand depending on the options you spec). Bonus, OCR and Postscript 3 nor faxing come standard. Yeash.

 

[_timo_redux_]

At work our Canon imageRUNNER ADVANCE C3530i color photo prints are "not terrible."

Any image I care about I print with my Epson inkjet.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

At work our Canon imageRUNNER ADVANCE C3530i color photo prints are "not terrible."

Any image I care about I print with my Epson inkjet.

Interesting, and that is 1200x1200dpi. Thanks for the data point, much appreciated!

 

[MacPoulet]

Interesting, and that is 1200x1200dpi. Thanks for the data point, much appreciated!

Out of curiosity, why so interested about resolution? I’ve seen printers with lower resolutions produce better results than models with artificially high numbers.

ive always found it’s best to get your samples printed and compare them.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Out of curiosity, why so interested about resolution? I’ve seen printers with lower resolutions produce better results than models with artificially high numbers.

ive always found it’s best to get your samples printed and compare them.

Perhaps you could tell me what those printers are. There is a versa 405 printer that Xerox has and it produces 8bit color per printed pixel, but only does 600dpi.

I asked Xerox about it and they said the higher resolution printers did photos better but perhaps you’re right, when I do this math about how much Info per square inch is used to render an image, is it this:

600*600*256=92,160,000 bits of color info (or if it’s only 8 colors it’s 600*600*8=2,880,000)
2400*1200*4=11,520,000 bits of color info

So should I be checking out that Xerox 405 versa that supposedly does 600x600dpi @8bpp (ie 256 colors)? Maybe there are some other better color laser printers that do more bits per pixel that would be better for photos?

Also I may be mistaken, I was assuming the versa can do 8bits per pixel, but perhaps it can just do 3bits of color instead of 2, ie, only 8 colors? Here is a grab of the spec sheet:

Anyway, maybe my entire thesis that the more information per square inch will make the photo better only works in theory and in reality other factors trump?

I think the old inkstick/phaser printers did do 8bits per pixel, ie, 256 colors per printed pixel. Perhaps other printers out there can still do that?

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

So I went to Office Depot and printed out on a 600dpi HP printer. It had HP imageRET3600. What is interesting is it did look better than my admittedly lame brother which can output 2400x600dpi.

So I do wonder if the imageRET works or maybe it's other factors like quality of the toner etc (paper I used was garbage so it wasn't that). Meaning, Xerox has true 2400x1200 printers, but would an HP printer that does 1200x1200 with ImageRET 4800 work better?

I searched around the internet and oddly really no one has tackled this question, at least not with a few easy google searches. :/