Canon - SELPHY CP1300

Whatever you do, stay away from the QX10. I used it once, it broke. Sent it back for returns, immediately broke again. Whenever it breaks, it eats the entire cartridge, which is very expensive. Thus of the three cartridges I bought, I got to print one. Terrible product. CP1300 is fine (slow, big, mid quality), INSTAX is fine, too (small, rugged, low quality).

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).

I have the older CP1300. Print quality is only ok. A basic inkjet like my Epson XP8500 prints significantly better. Even a self-service instant printer at the store prints much better. But don't take this too harshly: the SELPHY prints are ok. Just not great. Still, the photos from the SELPHY are convenient, easy, and relatively cheap. All other options are much more effort. You can typically get lab prints cheaper, but not instantly. INSTAX is another option, with worse image quality, but portable, and with a certain analog charm. You can get better prints from a basic photo inkjet, for a similar price per picture. It's more work, since you need a computer and futz with drivers etc. But you get to experiment with different papers and print sizes, which is fun! And the quality if the results is much closer to a lab print. Good paper is not cheap, though, so you won't save money relative to the SELPHY.

Bought a used cpl1300 for 30 usd. Works great 👍

I have a selphy 1300 (second hand for less than £50) which is identical (as far as prints are concerned)to the 1500 without some os and screen features. I also have a canon g650 A4 printer The selphy is brilliant for postcards, photos for the fridge etc... I have a memory scrap book which I use those photos. Quality is ok, it's fun. Requires a bit of altering of the settings to get colours right. The PIXMA g650 is for my "art" prints. Quality is phenomenal and the detail is another level. With some satin paper, I adore the prints and they really look "wow". Both have their use.

I have a 1300 and the picture quality is great.

The Selphy runs about 30 cents/4x6 print.

With a canon Selphey you can get 4 wallet size to a single 4x6 print. Super quality. With an app like PicFrame you can make mini collages. Don’t need to worry about ink drying out either.

I have a Selphy CP1300 and I like it, but... the cost of a print is at least 2x higher than what I would pay from CVS / Walmart / Shutterfly / Google / etc. and that's probably the route I'll go after using up the ink cartridges I have. The image quality is going to be very similar so it's tough to justify. An instax printer at least gives a unique look compared to the online / local photo printers.

I went back and forth on this for ages and settled on the Canon Selphy Square a couple years ago. I have had the occasional issue with the printer cartridges with the Selphy, but have always been able to spool the film back onto the reel as needed. Sticker paper, portable sized, and most importantly for me, the dye sublimation printing means the prints should last for as long as I need them to (some of their marketing materials say 100 years, which is longer than my mid-30's ass will be alive, so...). I stayed away from all the zink printers, which apparently can start fading in just a few years. I have a MLIS (Master's of Library and Information Science) so I probably err TOO far on the side of historical consideration, acid-free and archival pens, etc., particularly for someone who doesn't plan to have kids and would want her journals burned at death, lol. My boyfriend bought the Canon Selphy CP1300 a few years later, and it's nice to have on hand for larger prints and photos. u/pannedemonium did a [tutorial on reducing bulk by removing the backs of photos](https://www.reddit.com/r/hobonichi/comments/1e9shyw/reducing_bulk_with_photos_canon_selphy_cp1500/) that you might find useful. I don't find the CP1300 to really be travel-friendly (I wouldn't bring it with me), but it's also honestly not that big. Smaller (but thicker) than a paperback book.

They all suck. The inkjets suck for all the usual inkjet reasons, the dye-sub (e.g. Selphy) have less than pure colours and are a shit, etc. I like printing to Instax (the TONEZ) for instant tangible photography. I keep a Selphy CP1300 for quick prints when I just want to see something on paper or print at a social event. Everything else goes to the lab because the quality is better and the print cost is cheaper. Almost everything that goes to lab is for 8x10 or 8x12 and I wouldn't want to feed a hungry inkjet printing those all day.

The Canon Selphy is perfect for this—printing up to 4” by 6” photos. You can buy one used for less than $100 (1300 model) and paper/ink costs about 30c per print (or even less if you buy them secondhand).

I have the selphy cp 1300 (or 1500)? I don’t have it in front of me so I can’t confirm which, and I don’t know if there are any major differences. I kinda assume the print quality between the two is similar, if they use the same paper/cartridge. Thoughts: I’m not a huge fan of the colors. There’s desaturation and a washed out vibe with certain colors. Yellows and reds don’t pop like they should. If the colors were true, I’d use it way way more, but it’s not something that I can feel really proud of, so it’s relegated to more of the novelty position. I would never describe it as accurate, and I was never able to get what I was seeing on the screen to transfer to the paper. Detail is good. I like that the photos are shiny. And the right size, and a close to instant delivery. I had intended for it to be a bit of a party favor thing, but I haven’t actually ended up using it in a few years. I never set it up with a battery solution. I don’t love the print app. Fine, but nothing to write home about. I wasn’t able to get print easily my Mac. Caveats: I haven’t used it with the x100. I’ve found it most useful for labeling the contents of my massive collection of external hard drives. I’d take a screenshot of the folders on the drive>share to my phone>print>tape to the side of the drive.

Como outros já comentaram, depende um pouco da proposta. Concordo com sua visão geral de que a câmera é mais “presente”, mais divertida e parece se encaixar melhor na pretensão de ambos, considerando que está vinculada mais ao “guardar momentos” do que a qualidade das fotos/impressões. O filme é caro de fato e vejo que geralmente as pessoas “tem dó de usar”. A facilidade de tirar 500 fotos no telefone e escolher a perfeita certamente contribui com isso, é uma outra abordagem de fotografia e não me parece fazer sentido “queimar” filme com fotos similares simplesmente almejando perfeição. Por outro lado, vejo valor na impressora quando falamos em maior número de fotos (se for um volume de fato enorme, compensa comprar impressão em lote igual outro comentário sugeriu). Mas não iria de instax não, as Canon SELPHY que fazem 10x15 me agradam mais e o refil custa menos.