Epson - Expression Photo XP-8800

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).

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).

Epson Expression Photo XP‑8800 will be the best to print pictures.

Go with the Epson 8550. A huge range of print media and if your selling art prints on etsy, it's safe to assume your customers aren't seeking archival quality. Dye inks will give you a wider more vibrant gamut and once you select your paper of choice and icc profile (red river papers for the profiles and sample packs of paper)you will get thousands of prints out of the tanks. And the cost for all six inks as refills is like $30 on amazon right now. The Epson claria inks are rated to last 75 years+, much longer than any of your customers plan to have the print anyways. And if pigment ink is a necessity then when you buy the 8550, fill it with pigment inks and not dye inks. But this must be done on empty clean tanks and there is no going back. The 8550 will give you much better profit margins. The only reason to go with something like p900 is that 17" wide format is a must have, but then in that case you might as well just step up to a 24" inch plotter. After that, you move into the big leagues and run eco solvents One last note if you want a lower entry point but wide format you can go with an Epson expression for like $200 or so that will print in super a3 or 13"x19". It uses claria inks as well but in cartridges. Lower initial cost but higher long term. Your choice.

I have an Epson expression and it's fucking horrible do not get one. The biggest waste of money of anything I have ever bought.