@DG said:
When I looked at the options with a friend a few months ago, there seemed no point in getting an inkjet. No only does the ink run when trombone players spit on the page, but the pages take so long to print that a thousand page run would take for ever.
However, if it is only for non pressurised situations,then I guess that laser is the unnecessarily expensive option.
DG
DG, one must do a bit of research. The ink-run argument is an old one by today's standards. Not all inkjets are the same. Canon's quick drying inks have never run the way other inkjets do-- and if trombone players spit on any page, no matter if it were done by Kalmus or Boosey, the part is already on its way to ruin. Parts also get heavily marked after only a few uses, so replacing parts is also part of the evils of maintaining a library. It's still more cost effective on a good inkjet-- Buy a cheap inkjet and you get yourself into trouble.
For the difference in cost of laser and inkjet, I have also invested in better-than-normal paper to do the printing. Waussau 60-lb cover not only takes and holds the Canon inks extremely well, but the Waussau papers are also quite compatible with photocopier toner. I've never had a problem with inks running.
Inkjets themselves ought not to be blamed wholesale in the interest of distinguishing the misconceptions. Lasers are no better in that regard, and I have used both laser and inkjet-- HP and Canon. I cannot recommend HP or Epson, but the Canon represents a new breed in high standard inkject printing. The wide difference in price and operating costs do not reflect the neglegible differences in quality.
Everyone will suit themselves and their budgets. I only felt that I'd be remiss had I not shared my findings.