Canon - PIXMA TS8750

The Canon PIXMA G600 series is a solid choice if you want a bottle-fed high quality photo printer. The PIXMA TS8700 series and TS9500 series are also worth a look. Those top two TS-series machines use individual tank-only cartridges, with a semi-permanent print head, so are significantly cheaper per page/photo than the lower machines which use the combined head-and-tank cartridges. The bottle-fed machines do still have the lowest running cost, but you need to be printing a reasonably high volume before the saving really becomes significant. The PIXMA range are more the photo machines, and the MAXIFY range is more for business document printing (but they can still do a reasonable photo print). The 5 and 6 ink high end PIXMAs will generally always beat the 4 ink MAXIFYs on photo quality. For best photo quality only use genuine Canon ink and print on Canon photo paper, the photo quality is truly excellent if you fully commit to their products. It sounds like your print volume is not particularly high, in terms of pages per month. The PIXMAs are not really intended to be high volume machines (although the G-series machines are suitable for a bit more). The MAXIFY GX-series is suitable for up to about 1,500 to 2,500 pages per month (depending on the model), and higher volume than that really should be using a laser printer.

Normally one of the 5/6-ink Canon PIXMAs would be my recommendation for high quality home photo printing, using only genuine Canon ink and high quality photo paper. Canon's own photo paper is excellent and works superbly with their ink, as you'd expect, but some people choose to go with a high end third party brand photo paper instead (Canon even sell some high end third party photo paper alongside their own). With a larger budget, one of Canon's PRO-series machines would be the next step up. The PIXMA PRO-200S is the prosumer/enthusiast model with 8 dye inks. The imagePROGRAF PRO-310 is the professional photographer's A3 machine with 10 pigment inks. The imagePROGRAF PRO-1100 is the professional photographer's A2 machine with 12 pigment inks. There are also large format imagePROGRAF PRO-series roll-fed machines from 24" to 60" width, but those would be beyond your budget and a long way beyond what you describe. You really need good pixels, and a lot of them, to get the best results printing on A3 or A2. I'm sure those machines would do excellent work with a high res photo from an exceptionally good phone, but they really need images from a Canon EOS camera (or a high spec Canon PowerShot), or something equally good, to get the best out of them and perform to their full potential. Now, in all honesty, a Canon PIXMA G500/600-series (A4), TS8700/8800-series (A4) or TS9500-series (A3) can do a superb job with a high quality image. Those are the 5/6-ink machines 1 step below the PRO-200S. I've got a Canon EOS camera and PIXMA TS9550, and the prints I get on A4 and A3 Canon photo paper are excellent. That could be all you need. Sure, the prints I would get from my EOS on a PRO-series would be a step closer to perfection, but I love what my PIXMA can do with a good image on good photo paper, and it was relatively affordable. If you don't already have a good enthusiast/pro level camera, I would spend that $1,500 on one of the Canon PIXMAs a step below the PRO machines and the remainder on a PowerShot or EOS R50/R10 starter kit (don't get the R100, it is still a good camera, but a generation behind on the image processor and kinda the no-frills model to entice people into the EOS ecosystem).

Also Canon PIXMA TS8750. A4 borderless, very much a photo machine, 6 ink. Individual cartridge-tanks, semi-permanent head. I.e. cheaper than the low end machines with combined cartridges because you replace inks individually and are not paying for a new head each time. Use XL cartridges for a much better cost per print. More expensive per print than the G600 bottle-tank, but that's not necessarily a huge issue if your volume is relatively low (the savings for bottle-tank machines really only become significant if you are printing high volume). It can still do excellent document printing, using the PGBK (pigment black). You'll get excellent results with genuine Canon photo paper, as the machines have profiles for it and you can tell them exactly what paper you are using. PT-101/PP-201 for glossy (pro/standard), LU-101/SG-201 for semi-gloss, MP-101 for matte. You can use third party art/photo paper, as long as it's not too thick, but the paper path isn't completely flat so really stiff paper could have feed issues. Or, breaking your budget, get the Canon PIXMA PRO-200S, which is the low end of their serious professional photo machines. 8 dye inks, A3+. Expensive to buy and run, but that's how it goes to get professional results. It's also better at handling thicker photo/art paper.

You need to stick to genuine manufacturer ink for reliable photo quality. Bottle-fed tank inkjets are pretty much the sweet spot for combining photo printing quality with low ink cost. The machines themselves are expensive (compared to the cheap consumer inkjets), but the ink bottles are cheap per page/photo. E.g. Canon PIXMA G3000/G4000 series, or the G600 series for better photo quality (it's a 6-ink machine, rather than the usual 4-inks). Alternatively, the machines with individual tank-only ink cartridges and a semi-permanent print head are generally lower cost per page/photo than the machines with combined head-and-tank cartridges, but not as cheap to run as the bottle-fed machines. E.g. high end 5/6-ink Canon PIXMA TR/TS-series machines (TR7600 series, TS8700/TS8800 series, TS9500 series, etc). On machines where you have the choice, the XL/XXL cartridges have a better cost per page/photo than the standard cartridges. The 5/6-ink machines also produce higher quality photo prints, compared to the cheaper 4-ink machines.

I use the 6-ink Canon Pixma G610 for stickers and party prints. I struggled at first finding the configuration and the special roles. But after looking for the right settings and papers I have obtained incredible results, it's just that the prints are a bit slow. If you want to sacrifice quality for speed, I would recommend a laser printer. It cost me approximately 280 euros