POOR-GRADES FOR LEXMARK'S NEW X2650 PRINTER

Toner News Mobile Forums Latest Industry News POOR-GRADES FOR LEXMARK'S NEW X2650 PRINTER

Date: Friday August 15, 2008 02:42:48 pm
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • Anonymous
    Inactive
    http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/taxid;4567;pid;6060;pt;1
    Lexmark X2650
    A distinctly no-frills multifunction
    The
    X2650 is a bargain bin device at the bottom end of Lexmark’s inkjet
    multifunction range. Its price point may appeal to those looking for a
    cheap printer, but poor speed and print quality, and expensive inks
    make this a multifunction that’s easy to pass by.

    It has no card
    reader, and its PC-less functions are limited to simple copying and
    initiating image scans. A single character LED screen serves the sole
    purpose of indicating the number of copies made. We don’t expect too
    much from a multifunction at this price — the mere fact that it can
    print, scan and copy seems worth the $69.

    Unlike most budget
    printers, the X2650 is surprisingly sturdy. Although it still has a
    very plastic and cheap feel to it, its hinges don’t seem as fragile as
    some others we’ve seen. There are still some poor design choices — when
    changing printer inks, the support that holds up the printer’s upper
    half must be manually readjusted in order to fit back into its slot.
    The use of a rear paper tray rather than a front one is also a pity, as
    it means the printer takes up more space.

    The appeal of the
    X2650’s initial price point is quickly diminished by its running costs.
    The multifunction will cost an average of 36.6c per page, making it one
    of the most expensive multifunctions on the market in terms of running
    costs. Given the 14-15c per page achieved by most of its competitors,
    the X2650 is unappealing.

    Print speeds are horrible — mono text
    documents will print at 12 page per minute using draft quality and
    8.6ppm using normal quality. Graphics documents are even slower,
    printing at 8.6ppm in draft quality and taking 35 seconds to completely
    print in normal quality. Photo printing shows marginally better
    results, with a standard 4x6in photo printing in 32sec, and A4 photos
    taking 1min 32sec. While we don’t expect laser speeds from a budget
    multifunction, these results are inadequate; only Epson’s budget
    counterpart Stylus CX5500 has worse speeds.

    Quality is not
    stunning, either. Text is largely clear and tidy, if a little faded.
    Adding background highlights in graphical documents make text much
    messier, with inconsistent background colours and some horizontal
    banding. Vertical banding plagues photos printed from the X2650, a flaw
    further highlighted by under-saturated colours and extremely poor
    blacks. Even at the best possible quality, vertical banding simply
    ruins the image, making it one of the worst photo printers we’ve seen.

    Scanning
    does offer some consolation. Whereas the more expensive X4650 produced
    overly light images, images scanned by the X2650 are much more
    balanced. Colours and flesh tones are generally accurate, and the
    multifunction can scan clean text for later copying or OCR processing.

    For
    the most part, the X2650 is a cheap and dirty multifunction that serves
    no purpose other than to provide an emergency option in times of
    printing crisis. Speed and quality are both substandard, but might
    suffice for urgent printing. Given the consumable efficiency of this
    printer, it seems more logical to shell out for a brand new printer
    rather than have to refill the cartridges on the X2650.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.