Canon - SELPHY SQUARE QX10

I'm a clueless German; we have no Walgreens here. Please specify your current workflow and needs. Printing at home is usually far(!) from cost efficient. If I need prints, just in general, I usually wire them to CEWE, for picking them up at my local drug store, after a promised week, to which I can walk, while the rented washing machine in my attic is running. I can also buy some groceries on that trip, so I really have zero extra cost for shipping or commuting. For SRA3 laser prints I'd rely on work. They have two Minolta lasers. I do *own* a Canon Selphy. I haven't unboxed it yet. Imagined use case: To need a postcard (-x) sized color print *NOW(!)*. Dyesubs are great at sitting around unused, while inkjets reguire power and regular flushing routines, that might break my neck over time. - Speed aside the printer offers no benefits and is at least 3x as expensive to operate.

I own one but I haven't even unboxed it. A Selphy is a wonderful machine to once in a blue moon or like every week? print an entire postcard. Dye sub tech is excellent for sitting around and doing nothing; i.e you 'll go through some hassle to revive a fountain pen, you used a year ago, but your Selphy will just fire up. Print quality seems decent and the results aren't overly sensitive / quite abusable. But: Prints *are* expensive. If you are a penny pincher, with all the time in the world: Order from DM. If you are an artist: Print bigger! IMHO Selpys are intended to serve as a Polaroid substitute; bring yours somewhere, give people pictures, right in the spot. (You need to buy an extra battery, to print in the field). A wealthy friend of mine uses his Selphy at home. Mine is intended to serve in a pinch.

How portable do you mean or want? - 30 years ago i jobbed for a company that hauled roll fed inkjet plotters to architects. We were two on the van and the plotters quite light (compared to a 4c Heidelberg of at least 2.8t). An apparently capable A4 desktop color laser weighs just 35kg; i.e. I could move it on my own (but have no clue how results compare to the bigger ones, doing photo books and calendars at work). Just stressing: A big inkjet can deliver awesome quality these days and color lasers are cost efficient. Myself I bought a Canon Selphy dyesub, doing postcards (sadly in 3/0) or smaller. - I'd rather have a 3/1, since my handwriting sucks, but... Operating cost will be comparably horrible, but it can sit around free of cost, unlike inkjets, that need regular flushing routines and aren't cheap to operate either Other niggles: Postcards are too tiny Some users reported issues with dust inside their machines. Its more or less "a Polaroid substitute toy" but a way to produce photos at home or elsewhere.

Canon Selphy forever. I spent years researching mini-printers. If you want your photos to last and be of the best quality for home prints, get a Selphy.

I was gifted a canon selphy last week. Its not bad. I'd compare it to the old school polaroid printouts, but better quality. Definitely would use it to smash out a quick edit and print to give away on the spot as a promo photo, But not the kind I'd frame and put on the wall. And thanks to the other commenter about the batteries, I'll look into those too.

Agreed! I bought this on vacation because I was scrapbooking a lot and the small size is one of the benefits. The app gives me a ton of control over what I print and has made memory keeping even more joyful!

You're asking about price per print, *including* the amortized cost of the printer. In the long run, ink and paper costs always dominate. Short term however, the price of the printer dominates. A more expensive printer, such as the Epson ET8550, will have very good long term cost, but the initial investment is steep. A less expensive printer, such as a Canon SELPHY, will have a modest initial price, but price per picture adds up much faster. The least expensive printer is Walgreen's, with no up-front cost, but high ongoing cost. A second consideration is quality. The more expensive the printer, the higher the print quality. The ET8550 will outperform Walgreens, producing richer colors and more detail. A professional printer such as the Canon Pro 1200, will be even better. The SELPHY does not match Walgreens. And then there's effort. Walgreens takes your JPEGs and prints them. SELPHY does, too. But a dedicated printer will require some fiddling with a computer to get good results. On the flip side, you get to play with various paper types and sizes. But make no mistake, this is extra effort. Personally, I went with a Canon Pro 200, which is roughly equivalent to the Epson ET8550, but cheaper to buy and more expensive to operate. It's all a matter of how much do you intend to print. I also have a much cheaper Epson XP8500, which prints better photos than the SELPHY, for less money, but can't match the Pro 200. I also have a SELPHY, which is nice for what it is, but can't match Walgreen. And I have an INSTAX printer, which fits in my pocket and prints adorable little polaroids. But quality can't match even the SELPHY. Depending on your needs, all of the mentioned printers are a good purchase. In your case, I'd probably recommend the Epson XP8800 as a cheap, good quality photo printer. You'll be able to buy six full ink replacements before you'll reach the cost of the ET8550, which should take several years. If you'd like to splurge, the ET8550 is definitely the better printer, with lower ink costs. And keep in mind that ink is only one part of the running costs. It's easy to get swept up in the marketing that an ecotank printer makes printing "free". But that's ignoring paper costs, which in my experience dominate printing costs in the long run. First party paper is reliable and good, but offers only limited variations. Third party paper requires matching printer profiles, which can be hard to come by for non-professional printers such as the XP8800 (but some paper manufacturers (Photospeed) profile for free, and there are cheap services for creating bespoke profiles).

Essentially, there are 4x6 dye-sub printers like the SELPHY CP1500, the mini dye-subs like the QX10, Zink printers, and INSTAX printers. Stay away from the mini dye-subs. My QX10 broke twice in two weeks, and and each time wasted an entire ink cartridge. They are trash. The other options work well. The big SELPHY is decent quality and large, but slow and loud and not really all that portable. Zink is faster and portable and prints on paper. INSTAX is much faster, least good quality, but with analog charm.

I’ve had a Canon Ivy for years, and also a Canon Selphy square. I tend to use the Selphy a lot because it is newer and higher quality, but the narrower Ivy photos work well if I have a little less space. I got non-proprietary cases for travel and have loved having them!

I have not had any issues at all. Since I’m a data kind of person, I looked up my receipts and here are my stats, lol: It is the QX10, and I’ve had it since Dec 2023. I’ve purchased 120 sheets of photo paper for it and have ~20 sheets right now, so it has printed 100 photos for me so far. 😊

the Canon Selphy has smaller sized sticker paper but I usually just print a collage and then cut out photos. I have one of those rounded corner punches which I think looks cute

I second the Canon qx20 (or qx10 if you just want a 2x3" print). I don't like the HP sprocket 200 or Canon ivy 2... they seem to overly sharpen and I don't like how they reproduce darker skin tones.

I’ve got a Kodak and honestly all of the mini printers have colour issues of some sort. The only advantage they have is that they use sticker paper. I recently bought a Canon Selphy and that’s a little bigger but the colours are so much better

for anyone looking into this the canon selphy is a great lil printer!