Issue #0638/2 - Dye-sublimation photo printers, especially the more expensive ones, should be given a wide berth.
To wrap up the evaluation, the moral must be – unless there is very good functional justification for buying a high-end model (such as Epson’s PictureMate 280 with its DVD-ROM/CD-RW drive or Hewlett-Packard’s Photosmart 475 with its 1.5GB built-in memory and larger print format), there really is little justification for not being happy with a cheaper, low-end model.
This is particularly relevant with the dye-sublimation printers. The low-end inkjet printers tend to offer better connectivity and equal, if not better, functionality than any of the dye-sublimation models, regardless of cost. And, permanence of the prints is better.
There is a fairly clear differentiation between the apparent concepts of portable photographic printing presented by the various players offering these devices.
Put simply, photographic specialists present continuous tone dye-sublimation printers that produce photographs but do little else. We find the consumer electronics and photography specialists viewing the printing of photographs from the angle of simply creating a hard copy of what the camera has captured. So, some of the tools are missing.
Sony perhaps epitomises this group - as a consumer electronics company, aspiring to offer every type of electronic device the consumer could ever desire. This has led the company first to dabble in IT electronics and then in photography, supported most recently by the acquisition of Konica Minolta’s cameras.
On the other hand, IT specialists look to the overall user experience, recognising that photography is now a digital, IT-oriented, entertainment application along with music and video. So, any hardware must fit the wider IT ecosystem.
We therefore, build up a picture of the traditional IT printer manufacturers offering inkjet machines with features and functionality born from their experiences in the provision of printing facilities to IT users. Working on the premise that printed output has been computer-generated, tools are put into the hands of computer users to achieve the results they desire.
Long term, if the dye-sublimation machines are to present as convincing competitors to inkjet machines, they must incorporate the same features and functionality, at a competitive cost, that their inkjet cousins enjoy.
However, one purchasing driver we cannot ignore is that of camera brand. It is clear that the market leaders in digital cameras are the photographic specialists not the IT specialists. For instance, despite some superb products, Hewlett-Packard has struggled to win significant market share against the likes of Canon and Fuji.
Certainly Kodak camera buyers will be drawn towards Kodak printers, while Olympus and Sony camera buyers may be drawn to Olympus and Sony printers. However, with the office and home printing environment so well recognised for its photographic printing capabilities, home photographers who are owners of cameras from other manufacturers are more likely to be drawn to hardware from the mainstream printer manufacturers.
Similarly, home photographers who are involved in home computing are likely to be drawn to hardware from the IT manufacturers, while camera owners with no PC in the home may be more strongly drawn to the printers from the photographic hardware suppliers.
Canon is the one manufacturer that is hedging its bets by offering both technologies. It also has the advantage of being both a major camera and photographic equipment manufacturer as well as a major IT printer manufacturer.
Lexmark, ironically an IT company, has been the only manufacturer to create a device with no PC interface – rapidly rectified!
So, on this basis, inkjet represents the far better buy for computer literate photographers because of the flexibility and functionality the hardware offers.
But, there is a place for the dye-sublimation machines for photographers with no PC involvement and who want a clean, simple and basic standalone home and portable photographic printing solution. However, buyers must be prepared for a lack of flexibility.
It is very encouraging to see some of the supplies costs coming very closely in line with the cost of purchasing prints from high-street mini-lab outlets. This is progress that will encourage users to print more at home.
However, because there is no definitive differentiation between the two technologies purely on the basis of cost, the final choice really does come down to flexibility and functionality.
If cost and configuration are the primary consideration to the user, then it is the Hewlett-Packard machines that are most attractive. But, do remember that this is reliant on buying the combined ink/media photo packs and not the separate packs.
~End~
