Review: Kodak’s New Inkjet Printer is A Disappointing Letdown

Kodak EasyShare 5300 All-in-One Printer

The much-anticipated (because much-ballyhooed) all-in-one inkjet printer from Kodak turned out to be a disappointing letdown when tested against similar offerings from HP, Epson and Canon.

PopPhoto.com tested all four printers in the magazine’s million-dollar facility (not that its price mattered, but the method does) and the results debunk Kodak’s claim of 10¢ 4 x 6-inch lab quality prints.

The $200 Kodak EasyShare 5300 all-in-one printer churns out washed-out draft quality prints if you try to economize using their 3-star paper. To get lab quality prints, the printer requires more expensive paper and more ink, jacking up the actual cost to more than 35¢ per print, more in line with the other printers.

We wished Kodak succeeded in this one, but they appear to have blown it instead. Back to the drawing board, Kodak? Or maybe Memjet can stop boasting about their pagewidth printheads and go right ahead producing what they promise to be fast printers with affordable inks?

[Via: PopPhoto.com]

Chris Malinao

About Chris Malinao

Chris teaches Lightroom as workflow software to photography students at the FPPF, Federation of Philippine Photographers Foundation. He also teaches smartphone photography.

6 thoughts on “Review: Kodak’s New Inkjet Printer is A Disappointing Letdown

  1. pookaloopa

    Got a 5100, used it daily for the last three weeks, love the print quality, love the number of prints I’m getting per cartrige, Like the water resistant photos, like the longevity of pigment based inks, Don’t mind paying $15.00 for a OEM tank. Don’t care what pop photo says. I don’t need them to let me know when my printing costs have been markedly reduced.

  2. rlj

    Purchased the 5300, and I’ve compared 4x6s against the Epson PictureMate and have been very impressed with the Kodak. I found their 3 star paper to be substandard like the review states, but the prints are very good using decent Kodak and Epson glossy paper, which is on par with the premium photo value pack at 15 cents per print. I think the popphoto reviewer should have done his homework in this area instead of sticking it to Kodak about the 10 cents per print. At least this is a step in the right direction as far as reasonable ink costs for very good prints.

  3. Bob

    I don’t see the problem here. The Kodak printer gives people a choice, lower (but really quite good) quality prints for a very low price or equivalent quality prints for about the same cost. For most of my prints I find that the lower quality is fine. Few people are closely examining the quality of the prints around my den. Why should I spend all the money on the higher quality 4×6 prints just to put them on the refrigerator. When I want great quality I can print great quality. The rest of the time I’d rather save the money.
    Of course, since I also use this printer for non-photo printing the low cost ink is even more appealing!

  4. tbrac

    Another site that only quotes PopPhoto’s review? That single review sure gets around. It accounts for 80% of the negative reviews for the printer.

    Since I’ve sworn off Epson and HP, this one can’t possibly be worse for $150.


Vintage Olympus Pen F Zoom Lens 100 - 200 F5 w Og Cap, for Parts Only. picture
Vintage Olympus Pen F Zoom Lens 100 - 200 F5 w Og Cap, for Parts Only.
Rolleiflex TLR Right Hand Side Panel for Parts Only picture
Rolleiflex TLR Right Hand Side Panel for Parts Only
RCA CC-009 Color Video Camera Original Box - NOT TESTED- Parts Only picture
RCA CC-009 Color Video Camera Original Box - NOT TESTED- Parts Only
DALLMEYER ENLARGING 82mm F4.5 for M42 Mount Lensf rom Japan [For Parts] #C3665 picture
DALLMEYER ENLARGING 82mm F4.5 for M42 Mount Lensf rom Japan [For Parts] #C3665
PARTS kodak bantam RF vintage old Camera case 300 shutter 50mm film  picture
PARTS kodak bantam RF vintage old Camera case 300 shutter 50mm film