Minolta magicolor 7450 - where is the catch?

Looking for a new color laser printer to purchase, I just learned about the availability of a model called "Minolta magicolor 7450".

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2033156,00.asp

On the face of it, it looks PERFECT (from my own point of view):
Laser, PHOTOREALISTIC, Duplex (option) - and low total cost per page (consumeables).

What more can I ask for?

But knowing the real world, there must be some catch hiding somewhere...

What is it?

Where is the catch?

Is it reliability?

Something else?

Thanks,
Alex

 

Have not used a magicolor in recent years, but a few years ago they were ahead of their time in print quality.

Until someone comes along to this thread who is currently using a magicolor 7450, the only catch I can think of is that if you're printing photo output I wouldn't be surprised to have to buy a set of drums after 10,000 prints or so on a small printer like this (or even less). I suspect the cost per page is not taking into account durables like drums, ITB transfer belt, and fuser. And of course the quoted prices are probably for 5% coverage so if you're printing only photos the cost will be noticably higher unless it's winter and snow covered and then maybe a tiny bit lower!

 

As long as you realize Photorealistic is not the same as Photographic quality.
Lasers have come a long way from 400 dpi or 1-bit per color machines of 10 years ago. But even with 8-bit x 4 colors there is still the issue of color gamut. You simply can't match the color richness of a 12 color inkjet with a 4 color (anything). In addition to the expanded color gamut from having red and green in addition to CMYK, modern inkjets also have the light cyan, light magenta, light yellow, and gray (light black) inks. While the resolution and 8-bit-per-dot of modern lasers is outstanding and probably sufficient for most customers, it doesn't quite match the smoothness and nearer-continuous-tone gradiations and light shades you can get with an inkjet on decent ($) paper. But for graphic work and proofs, you can't beat a laser unless you're made of cash and lots of time to wait, not to mention the paper requirements of the inkjet to look good and the bundled inflexibility, like the watermarking of many inkjet media on the back preventing double sided printing.

 

Thank you very much for your answers. My understanding from your explanations is that I should be aware of the difference between "Photorealistic" and "Photographic quality".

I know that there is a long way for lasers to go before they can match inkjets.

Assuming I am willing to give up the extra quality of inkjets for the convinience/reliability of lasers: Is Minolta's Magicolor 7450 the only "Photorealistic" color laser printer out there? (within that price range: $1K - $5K)

For example, I noticed that there is another Minolta Magicolor (5570) which is much cheaper:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16828117030

I noticed many similarities between the 7450 and the 5570. For example, both have a resolution of 9600 x 600 dpi. It almost seems as if the only difference between the two is the paper size (is this really the case?).

Since I am determined to buy a color LASER printer (not inkjet), what is the best photographic quality laser printer I can find for the $1K - $5K price range? I can live with smaller paper size for now (letter/A4).

Does the Magicolor 5570 have the same "Photorealistic" quality as the Magicolor 7450?

Thanks,
Alex

 

Alex,
I just googled "7450, awards" - check it out! They said it's meant for graphic design department. As a former and still, at times designer - that's a pretty big thing to say.

 

not quite in the same league, but i bought a xerox 6130 postscript printer. and they are cheap as chips, and the quality is great for a laser. ask printerbase to send you a print from one. you could go onto a 7400, but then if you want to spend 2k on consumables? it depends on how deep your pockets are i guess