CrunchGear

I don’t know what pop photography was shooting for but I have to disagree with their results. I’ve had a 5100 for three weeks now and I get more excellent quality photos per buck than I have with any of my canon printers i900 i9900 ip6700d. I print about half 8.5 X 11 and half 4 x 6. I use good quality paper that I get on sale, HP advanced glossy, kodak ultra glossy, Epson glossy etc. I don’t know exactly how many 4X6s i get per tank but it is very near what my canon ip6700d gets on a set of tanks costing $90.00 all for $15.00. The prints are waterfast and pigment based so they will last longer than my dye based canon prints. I’m not an accountant so I can’t tell you exactly the cost per print (it would vary depending upon my paper cost) but I do know when I’m getting excellent quality prints and saving money and I am with the Kodak. I’ve refilled cartriges bought compatibles and never got the quality prints the oem tanks provided. I can finally afford oem tanks for the amount of printing I do and I’m glad kodak entered the printer game with a marketing model that enables this.

Hello pookaloopa,

I have a Kodak 5500. It worked nicely for about 100 prints. Now it has many missfeeds were it has roller marks on the photo paper but you have to pull out the tray and realign the phot opaper in the tray. Sometimes you get another two or three prints before you have to do it all over again. On the first set of ink with the three star paper I got 163 4×6 prints not a 180 printswhen the machine told me to change ink.

i have since then use other types of paper. 5 star HP Prem, and Canon Glossy. Which are at least 35 cents or more a print.

None of the print come out as rich in colors that Canons MP 610 and HPs 7180 produce. Kodak prints are flat in tone but do have greater details in blacks because the Kodaks print blacks as grays. Please go to a store and print a few prints on these machines. They come much closer to a lab quality print you would get from Costco let say. The Kodak produces a less contras print as Walmart labs would. I let the kids use the Kodak for all of their prints But The Canon does the best for me.

Any way many people see color different If you can remember the RCA XL or Colortrac 2000 tvs. Some people loved the warm whites of XL and some people prefer the cool whites of colortrac 2000.
which is why you love the Kodak (XL) print and I prefer the (2000) Canon and Hps print. Take care.

Update,

Consumer Report also shows it a low quality print. Rates the Canons the best. Recent issue. Check it out at the library.

I’m a Kodak employee who has worked on this inkjet program since its inception. Popular Photography was kind enough to share with us some of their methodologies and we’d like to share with you our perspective on this review. We hope you get a chance to try our printers for yourselves.

The Kodak EasyShare All-in-One Printer was recently tested by Popular Photography Magazine, a well respected publication that provides excellent information for advanced amateur photographers who print large quantities of color photographs and enlargements at home. The audience for Kodak’s new All-in-One inkjet printer is primarily households that print large quantities of black and white and color documents in addition to color photos. These consumers are frustrated by the high cost of ink and are looking for an easier way to print documents and lab-quality photos at home.

The photo-quality test of the Kodak EasyShare 5300 was done using Kodak’s 3-star Photo paper. When using this basic Photo paper, the printer produces a good print at the low price of 10 cents per print. For bold colored, lab-quality prints, Kodak recommends its 5-star Ultra Premium or 4-star Premium Photo paper.

The print-yield test was done using four photos typical of advanced amateur shots, with higher color saturation and more ink coverage. Kodak’s internal testing was done with dozens of photos more representative of typical consumer shots. Results were an average of 180 photos per color ink cartridge using Kodak 3-star Photo paper, and an average of 135 photos per color ink cartridge when using Kodak 4-star Premium Photo Paper.

The Kodak EasyShare All-in-One Printers enable consumers to affordably print crisp, sharp documents and Kodak lab-quality photos at home that will save consumers up to 50 percent on everything they print. The new printers provide ultimate levels of print quality and ease-of-use, while offering low total cost of ownership compared to other leading consumer inkjet printers on the market.

Steve Billow
Writing System Team Leader
Eastman Kodak Company

I was interested in buying a printer, and there was a full page add in Parade with the Sunday Oregonian last week. This was for one week, $50 off of the printer and listed Best Buy as one of the retailers. When I went to purchase at Best Buy, the refused to honor the add. They said it was for the Kodak web site only. It doesn’t say that any where in the add. What gives?

Hi Steve,
since you are a Kodak employee, you are my only hope I’ve got left:
I bougth a Kodak 5300 - but I can not find a driver for Windows 2000!
Can you help me out?

Ben

Hi Ben,
Did you ever find a driver for windows ME, I just bought a 5100 and didn’t know if you found a driver if it might work for mine as well. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Dawn

Hi Ben,

Did you ever find a 5300 driver for Windows 2000?

Thanks,
Phil Palmer

Ben,
I am stunned that Kodak does not provide a printer driver for this 5300 AIO. Win2000 is still widely in use and the fact that Kodak cannot provide backwards compatability to Win2000 is incredibly shortsighted and just plain stupid. I’ts not like I’m asking for a driver for Windows 3.1 or even Windows 98SE. I have done an extensive search for a driver compatable with Win2000 since I purchased this boat anchor. What seems to be the problem with Kodak providing these drivers? I simply am going to have to return this printer and purchase one of the hundreds of AIO printers who do provide the appropriate driver. I cannot even give you an honest assesment as to the advantage disadvanteges of owning one of these dubious printers

Larry, read the specss. Win2000 wasn’t listed you boob!!

I have purchased two of the Kodak 5300 all in one printers. My husbands scans and copies fine. Mine does not work, it come up with cannot complete scan ettor and aborts. I can’t get a good answer from KODAK they all tell me to uninstall and reinstall software, I have done this about 30 times and it still will not scan or copy for me. I need help on this issue. Thank you

I too am experiencing the same messages and have tried two AIO5100 printers. I can only assume that my system is not powerful enough. My system is only 800mHz and not the recommended 1.2Ghz. Also (probably more importantly) my USB is only version 1.1. I need to update my hub I think? Can you advise if you have solved the issue? Thanks and good luck!

Steve,

Thanks for your comments, you sold me! I am tired of payimg $60 or more for ink cartridges. I have an Epson R260 and I can actually watch the ink go down on the software that pops up showing each ink cartridge levels. I haven’t printed but one 4 x 6 photo along with about 60-70 pages of text black and white, after which I had to go to Costco and pick-up another round of ink which hasn’t printed more than 50 pages of documents and is ALREADY empty on three of the five cartridges!!! I can almost BUY a new printer for the cost ink. Most of my friends have been doing that lately instead of replacing ink…how green is that!

Let your team know alot of people I know are looking at your printer due to the cost of ink. Keep the cost of your ink low and I will start buying ONLY Kodak paper with my new 5300.

Thanks Kodak, I will be heading out right now to purchase the 5300 since my old standby SLOW HP officejet T45 just took a dump too!

Chris

Steve,

Do you know where I can get a Windows ME printer driver for the Kodak 5300 all-in-one printer, since Kodak does not offer one?
Thanks.

I am sorry but the very erroneous that PopPhoto did for a review needs to stop. First of all Steve, Kudos. This is a great printer and for reference I am not the average consumer. I am an advance amateur soon going semi pro photographer, who has owned 5 Canon inkjets printers including the i950, the Pixma IP 5000 and now the Pixma 4300 I just bought along with my first Macintosh evern in an Apple promotion.

I have to say that I am sorry, but I must point out that PopPhoto basically hurt their credibility immensely with their review. No wonder since it’s the same guy sthat run American Photographer and Popular Photographer- the last one in particular that I detected on my own a very special form of writting that smelled like paid advertisement. It was not suprise that 3 months later my own professional fine arts photography teacher told me to NEVER EVER buy that magazine for exactly the same reasons. Respected in my eyes, it isn’t.

I don’t know how long the printer/printer head will last, but in my book Kodak was successfull in setting themselves what they did out to accomplish: Photo quality lab prints and a very reasonable price. So reasonable that now I find it a real option to printing at Costco (USA chain)- which is the alternative many photographers are looking at because its 17-18 cents per print is the lowest cost at a great quality I have seen- except now Kodak has finally given a true option.

I completely take objection to PopPhoto’s claims that the 10cent paper package is “draft quality” of other printers. Having my Canons I can say it’s on par with the level of CAnon’s Photo Plus Glossy- which is their “2nd best” printing option. That PopPhoto said this to me means they are a JOKE of reviewers. There’s no room for interpreatation here- these are facts. I am willing to show *anyone* what I am saying but better yet- go to a store and see it up for yourself.

I am very very angry that people like PopPhoto are spreading the kind of misinformation of what seems a very real and promising alternative for not only average consumer printing- but also more on a higher end pro level too.

Steve Billow, I have downloaded sample pro photos from the Canon EOS 12-16 megapixel cameras, have printed my own Olympus e-300/e-330 photos and I can vouch that the quality is there. ON the Mac the color accuracy to what I see on the screen (important for professional work) matches the Mac better than what I see out of my Pixma 4300 (I am sure the pixma can be calibrated to do better, but the thing is Kodak is doing the better job out of the box).

The black and whites are also FAR MORE black and white than the green tinted sepia output of my pixma 4300 (though it’s not bad). The only thing bad on it is that it has slightly more metamerism towards red/magenta under fluorescent light than the Canon - which also shows metamerism but more controlled.

Steve- tell your coworkers they should feel proud of their accomplishment and I wish Kodak well in this venture. Let me know if you want printed photos of my work.

raist3d@gmail.com

- Raist

PS: I find a bit irresonsible on this website to say “don’t believe the hype” when you guys haven’t even seen the printer yet

Jalon is known in the business as a “SINGER”. Most likely this person works with Kodak to counter the negative reviews and complaints associated with the 5300. It’s the oldest scam in the business world. I’m not sure when this type of hype started. Probably with those late night “no money down” Real estate courses and other dubious money making scams. His is the first ga ga review I have read about this printer. Does your 5300 mow your lawn and take out the trash also? Sounds like you may have had to change your undergarments after writing your review.

Larry, you’re such a Douchebag!!

Hello Raist3,

I do believe you feel the Kodak machine is better. I was wondering after reading your opinion. Did you Calibrate the Kodak using 3, 4, 0r 5 Star paper?

I used Kodak High Gloss 5 Star paper to calibrate the machine. Because I do agree with the Pop-photo article. And no way it comes close to a Costco lab print.

I wonder if the machine would have been calibrated using 3 star paper, would the prints be better when using 5 star paper. Can any one reply please. bigedusa@juno.com

I’m not an employee of Kodak, just an average user and camera user. I just purchased a 5100 and a 5300 for the house and couldn’t be happier with the results. In addition to my own photos, I downloaded and printed a variety of Canon demo photos. They were amazing! I took them to the office and the other camera buffs there first had trouble telling they were printed at home and then couldn’t believe it was from a $150 printer! Photo printing speed is good and the dark colors are indeed nice and dark.

I take issue with the bad reviews out there which claim that this printer doesn’t beat other photo printers in the same class/price range. I think that people might be expecting too much from a printer clearly in the “average consumer” market segment.

While this might not be a perfect lab-quality printer, its perfect for someone like my wife to print out snapshots to mail to relatives, make copies and act as a general printer/scanner. Its great for my wife to not have to worry about paper types, settings, etc. She just prints. Its perfect for me to print out proofs before ordering larger size or bulk prints from the lab.

The Mac OS X drivers are good for this printer, but the EasyShare software is death. Please, give users an option to install only the drivers. Some of us don’t need the hand-holding. I removed EasyShare immediately and downloaded the driver-only package from the Kodak website.

jalon

“I take issue with the bad reviews out there which claim that this printer doesn’t beat other photo printers in the same class/price range. I think that people might be expecting too much from a printer clearly in the “average consumer” market segment.”

Jalon, the thing that truly bugs me is that the printer is on par in quality pretty much with the competition and in some ways exceeds them. The Black and White is clearly better than the Canon. The photographic quality on the 10 cent paper is *hardly* draft like PopPhoto states, and in fact competes very well wiht the Canon Photo Glossy and semi gloss paper printing in their best quality. This is the thing that really bugs me- why these reviews are making statements such as these (there’s only 1 review so far pretty much- PopPhoto- which everyone seems to repeat).

Look at the very title of this blog- “Don’t believe the hype.” Don’t believe what, when they even haven’t tested the printers themselves!

Amazing.

Money must be changing hands, at least somewhere.

- Raist

As the author of the test report, it was my goal to determine if Kodak’s claims were true, and also to find out which of the four AIO printers I tested were the best value for photo enthusiasts. Comparisons were not made against any other (or older) printers than those in the test, and the comments above pointing to older Canon, Epson, and HP units that might produce equavalent prints to the ones we determined to be “draft” quality on the Kodak are outside the scope of our test. Our determination that Kodak’s 11.5-cent prints were Draft quality was a unanimous decision from the entire staff based on the image quality standards that we have set and stand by. We concluded that for $199, the Kodak 5300 is not the best value in the AIO class unless you can accept the print quality of its 3 Star paper. On the other hand, its 4 star and 5 star papers produce extremely high quality prints–but at a higher price per print.
Steve Billow from Kodak mentions the difference between the photos we chose for our test and those that Kodak uses. Despite that difference, our yeild on the 3 star paper was rather close to Kodak’s claim (165 vs claimed 180) and 11.5 cents per print is very close to 10 cents. We are more concerned with the claim that you should be able to get 135 4×6 prints from the 4 star Premium Paper Pack (when it ships!) since our yield came to only 80 prints–a much greater variation despite using the same images.
Since the article was posted, additional comments have been added pointing to software bugs that contributed to poor scanning results (notably a topic not mentioned by any current users despite Kodak admitting the problem), and 3 star paper that is still being sold in stores without the proper watermark to identify it to the Kodak printer (another contributing factor to our test results).

Dear Michael McNamara:

I definitively took objection to the review and I definitively still take objection to some of the points stated above -

” and the comments above pointing to older Canon, Epson, and HP units that might produce equavalent prints to the ones we determined to be “draft” quality on the Kodak are outside the scope of our test. ”

Except that I have seen the prints from the other printers too. For the Canon, the technology of the printer in the review is exactly the same as the Pixma 4300 - chroma life, 1 picolitter, 9600×2400. They are also of the “same generation” not like one older/newer kind of implication here. I have also seen its prints.

The only thing I am not sure is if with that if Canon with the MP810 solved the issue the pixma 5000 and 4300 have that when you print in high resolution, the last two lines or so of the print (particularly in borderless) have their Y resolution reduced by half. I wouldn’t be surprised if it even still has that problem, but then I haven’t seen it printing a photo watching it in detail to the end.

And on to that end a couple of things that amaze me:

* I still completely disagree that this is “draft quality” of the other printers. Ill make the point by checking the Epson- the one I am missing, on the 3 star Korak Paper.

* The fact you talk about 11.5 cents when quite frankly, 10 cents to 11.5 cents is really not a big deal considering how far and away more expensive the competition is… it’s good to note, but doesn’t seem like a huge deal to me witht this difference, honestly, and that doesnt’ seem to be pointed out as much as “boy, Kodak was off!”

* There was no mention whatsoever that Kodak will be selling a 135 premium 4 star paper pack with a color ink for $20 aprox. The excuse is that this is not out yet as Kodak slated it for April- that’s fine and dandy but it’s more than customary on near all reviews I have read to cite immediate improvements coming in the near future. This is one of them. At 15 (let’s say even 18 cents) per page with that paper, the Kodak is still far and away much cheaper to print on.

The issue here is, there was no mention of this in the review at all - that this pack is coming and that “we are waiting for that to come out to re-evaluate/etc.”

* I find very amusing you point out the user’s inability to mention scanning software issues as if that made any other inaccuracy right. The users are not paid to do reviews, so if they point out certain errors, it’s all free quality assurance for the reviewer. However, It’s perhaps possible this bug hasn’t been observed, because in my case I have my Kodak printer connected to a Mac, and not a PC, where the bug occurs?

Perhaps the fact that there’s a discrepancy between the users experience and the reviewer’s, should point out to some misccomunication/misinterpretation or something else that leads to an innacurate review and should make the reviewer ask what’s going on?

Given that the review used 3 star paper that cannot posibliy print correctly as designed, the least PopPhoto could do is issue the warning that the results and conclusions are invalid, pending the new watermarked paper. Yet, even knowing this, conclusions were drawn and are still being drawn on what this printer can really do.

In the end, I have a very technical background myself, and I see a Pixma with the same technology/inks/generation of the reviewed Canon Printer *and prints of the reviewed printer* which supposedly will produce in draft mode what the Kodak produces in 3 star paper - a factually false statement in my eyes. It’s in the end PopPhoto’s reputation that suffers as more owners come forward with their real world experience, if PopPhoto decides to cling to this. I am more than self confident in my technical ability to draw my own conclusions.

Fortunately, I see PopPhoto admitted some mis-communications and I can only hope they do update their conclusions as they receive water marked paper, and note that the Premium 4 star package is supposed to come out in the near future (i.e. this very month of April, 2007).

- Raist

Well, it may do the trick as a photo printer (haven’t used it for photos yet) but as an all-in-one printer, it does not measure up in ink cartridge cost savings. I used to replace my HP black cartridge for $30 once every 4 months. This $10 cartridge is only lasting 3 weeks. At this rate, I will spend $50 instead of $30. To make matters worse, Kodak does not recyle the cartridges. I really hate throwing these things into the landfill.

Do you know for a fact they don’t recycle them? I haven’t printed much black and white only text yet so I don’t know how it holds. However, if HP behaves as I know, it should still be cheaper than HP, but I respect your experience. Sorry if I ask the obvious but I am assuming you are printing the same paper type, same paper quality setting? If they are different and the HP is going on the draft side, try forcing the driver to use DRAFT settings on regular paper.

- Raist

Kodak claims a 50% savings on ink. Compared to what? Kodak’s reported cost per page in black is 2.7 cents. Comparing that to HP’s reported cost per page on the 02 black for the PS5180, 2.9 cents per page, hardly a 50% savings. And now for the color- HP (and Epson and Canon for that matter) use individual cartridges to save the customer money when they run out of ONE color. If you run out of one color on the Kodak, you must throw the entire color cartridge away wasting ink/money.

Kodak’s photos using the 3star paper is like draft quality. I’ve seen the Kodak reps demo photos. FADED looking.

If you’re happy with the printer, that’s what matters, but all I want is total honesty in printer reviews. I want the reviewer to compare apples to apples. Many don’t. This was pretty much a fair review except the HP printer used should have been the nearest competitor, PS 6180 or PS 5180. Just know that for that $200-$300 Kodak printer, you’re getting Lexmark or below Lexmark quality prints.

I want honesty too and no, the 3 start kodak paper does not look like draft quality of the others. As for cost per ink, the Canon Color even with the individual tanks is very expensive. Yes, you have to throw away the entire Kodak color tank, but by then you have printed quite a bit while on something like Canon you are at a point where you have to buy several color ink tanks.

Each ink tank is $14.95

If you are using the Pixma 4300/5000 - that’s 4 colors. If you are using one of the 6-color ink tanks, good luck. If you are using the 8 color one, ouch- though the red and greens are not used as much (photo cyand and photo magenta go *fast*).

Take a look at the HP packages of paper + ink and you see that Kodak claims are not far fetched at all.

As for the quality of prints I am getting, don’t be ridiculous. Having had no less than 3 Canon Photo printers I know darn well what I am getting. I also know what the HP can do as a friend has it. The prints are great even on 3 star paper. The only color that I notice a bit faded and this usually is actually is a non issue is red.

Of course, I can always get the Premium Paper package as soon as it comes out- 15 cents per print. Still way cheaper than the competition and with good quality.

- Raist

And btw, if you are so interested in review accuracy and comparing apples to apples- the reviewers admitted that the 3-star paper they used does not have the markings required so the printer can pickup the right profile for the paper. While this is a Kodak goof-up, the least they can do is say their conclusions are invalid pending re-testing with the right paper. That’s right: their conclusions are COMPLETELY INVALID because they tested with paper that picks the wrong profile.

- Raist

The only tests performed on the non-watermarked 3 star paper were for color accuracy and color gamut size. Our conclusion that 3 star paper produced draft quality prints was based on observation of 4×6 prints from the watermarked economy print and ink pack.

In our charts, we list the color accuracy and image quality of the 4 star paper prints as Extremely High based on watermarked paper.

So…..the Popular Photography review of the Epson 5300 needs to be redone.
Again.

Until Pop Photo figures out what they are doing..feast your pixels on this:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=22801943

Just found from dpreview someone who posted a link to the first other reviews starting to come out. Surprise! They also disagreed with PopPhoto. Double surprise to the “HP has cheap inks with tanks now”- HP is trying to bundle paper and inks *now that Kodak* did this, not before, and is still more expensive- as they include even less inks in the newer models!

- Raist

——-8X Cut here —————

“Reviews for the new kodak printers are beginning to appear. Everyone has read the PopPhoto review and knows that it is garbage. Here are a few more balanced reviews:

Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/... …582612-UCyaMUnYqfctbcqMKp2nDM7SVT0_20080424.html

PC Magazine
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2121644,00.asp

Yahoo Tech
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/raskin/10519

FastSilicon
http://www.fastsilicon.com/... …ent&task=view&id=196&pop=1&page=5&Itemid=27

I’ve had the 5100 for about 3 weeks now. Overall, I really like it. The best thing about it is that I actually use it! With my previous HP 8250 the ink was so expensive and ran out so quickly that I rarely printed anything.”

- david593

“The only tests performed on the non-watermarked 3 star paper were for color accuracy and color gamut size. Our conclusion that 3 star paper produced draft quality prints was based on observation of 4×6 prints from the watermarked economy print and ink pack.”

So, are those tests that were done incorrectly going to be re-appraised with watermarked paper? Not that it matters much considering I completely disagree with PopPhoto’s assesment of saying this is the draft quality of competitors.

- Raist

Hello Raist,

I would have to agree with Popphoto on this. Consumer Reports also backs up that the Kodak AIO’s prints a low quality print. They rated the Canons the best.
Kodak really goffed up on these printers. It what you get for moving production to china I guess.

But on cameras, the Kodak Z885 point and shoot is a great little camera. They are clearing those out at officemax nox.

I bought the 5100 from best buy in April 07′ when they first came out and started having problems with software upgrades just barely a month later. Due to that fact ,I could not take this back to the store, but my husband went round and round with Kodak support who finally got it through their heads that that printer had issues, and sent us another one; refurbished!
I did not pay for a re-furbished printer and did not appreciate getting one in return, but hey, it was working. Was that is, up until yesterday when it started printing 1/2 or blurred images with new ink tanks. When it works it is great, and pics are beautiful, but I am really getting frustrated with the whole thing! It has been more trouble than the low price is worth.

Igave my kodak 5300 series back could not down load the software

Anthony, you’re not a Moran, but a Moron!

I just received the Kodak 5100 as a gift. So far, photo prints have been very good, scanning OK, however as an all purpose printer it isn’t so great.
No printer tray so printed pages are spit out on the floor, the printer takes twice as long to activate than my old HP Deskjet 882C, (perhaps a software problem) and printing is less sharp than the HP. I’m still debating if I should reinstall my HP for printing service and use the Kodak exclussively for photos and scanning.