Kodak EasyShare 5300 Review at PopPhoto

Kodak’s new All-in-One printers promise to save customers up to 50% on everything they print. PopPhoto have tested that claim and compared the Kodak 5300 printer to its main rivals.

“We have tested the new Kodak All in One Ink Jet Printer and compared them to others in their class. Our findings were surprising: Kodak has built a lot of hype around claims of 10 cent photo prints and 50% savings over it’s competitors, but after exhaustive testing and hundreds of prints, we found that to get the quality that Kodak claimed you could get for 10 cents a print, consumers would have to upgrade to more expensive paper and end up spending more than 35 cents a print (nowhere near the 50% savings they claimed). ”

Website: PopPhoto - Kodak’s New Inkjet Printer—and Bold Claims—Put To The Test

Website: PopPhoto - All-in-One Printer Shootout

Published: Thursday, April 05, 2007

Reader Comments

1. I have owned a 5100 for about a month. It has substantially lowered my photo printing costs. My canons i900, i9900, ip6700d have been used very little since I purchased it. As far as my experience with the printer goes the pop photo test is not accurate. It appears as though test was conducted in a manner to arrive at a pre determined conclusion. What is their agenda?

   pookaloopa at 11:05pm on Monday, April 09, 2007

2. As the author of the test report, my agenda was to determine if Kodak's claims were true, and also to find out which of the four AIO printers I tested were the best value for photo enthusiasts. Comparisons were not made against any other printers than those in the test, and our determination that Kodak's 10-cent prints were Draft quality was a unanimous decision from the entire staff. We concluded that for $199, the Kodak 5300 is not the best value in the AIO class unless you can accept the print quality of its 3 Star paper.
   Since the article was posted, additional comments have been added pointing to software bugs that contributed to poor scanning results, 3 star paper that is still being sold in stores without the proper watermark to identify it to the Kodak printer (another contributing factor to our test results), and the unavailable 135 sheet Premium Paper Pack that will lower the cost per 4x6 print of the 4 star paper to 25 cents or less.

   Michael J. McNamara at 10:10pm on Saturday, April 14, 2007

3. Thank you Michael,
   
   I conclude from your response that the Popular Photography conclusions might have been premature, based upon what you found available in the stores after the first weeks of Kodak's product introduction. Perhaps you may have different results after the proper paper and kits are available. Its a shame that you didn't wait for Kodak to send you the proper evaluation material. The cost of ink is an important issue to many of us photographers and consumers. Based on your work, I figure the 3 star prints at about 11.5 cents and the 4 star prints at 15 cents. This is substantially less than the competition, and a very good reason to take a second look.

   Rich Smith at 07:48pm on Monday, April 16, 2007

4. Rich:
   My conclusions were not premature--they were based on shipping production models of the printer and all available materials, including the most up-to-date inks and papers on sale in any store. And Kodak did send us boxes of letter-sized 3 star paper when asked, and the glossy paper didn't have the proper watermarks on the back!
   Should I base the price per print on paper and ink packs that aren't shipping? No, that isn't right for the consumer who has no other choice. When Kodak actually ships the new Premium pack or gets us 3 star paper with watermarks, we will test it and release our findings.
   As for your math, it doesn't add up to 15 cents per print for 4 star paper. If we got 80 4 star prints using a full ink set and the same test prints we used on the 3 star paper, we will get 80 from the 135 Premium Pack when it ships, since the paper and inks are the same--albeit at a lower cost of $19.99. That equates to 25 cents per print.

   Michael J. McNamara at 02:46am on Tuesday, April 17, 2007

5. Time will tell if this printer will get an average of 135 prints out of a premium pack. If it does, and if some of the other problems Michael mentioned in his review are corrected, this printer should be a great boon to those of us who are fed up with printing costs.

   Jerry at 08:34pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2007

6. For anyone to quote number of prints on a fixed ink supply you must know exactly what you are printing. I worked for a large printer company for many years. Tests are done with an "average" mix of prints. Kodak more than company in the world should know what an average mix is. If you are printing snow scenes you will get substantially higher yields. If you print christmas "parade of light boat parades" substantially lower. I have been using the printer for about 4 weeks and compared to my other photo printers this one costs me about half mostly because a 40+ ml Kodak tank costs what the other guys' 10ml tanks cost. Papers cost about the same. The math is pretty simple.
   
   Doug

   Doug Watson at 06:18pm on Wednesday, April 18, 2007

7. I am still sitting on the fence to see what happens with the new printer technology in Austrailia.

   Duncan at 10:19pm on Thursday, April 19, 2007

8. Why all this talk about the number of cents difference in the cost per print ? What most people care about far more is getting outstanding photo quality, and the convenience and cleanliness of changing printer cartridges. I am a regular consumer who is trying to decide whether I should buy the new Kodak 5300 or the Canon Pixma MP 600. The Canon has received many reviews over many years as an outstanding best buy that prints stunning photos at a very fast speed, but I'm concerned about getting my fingers full of ink cleaning clogged printer cartridges which I suspect is not an issue with the new Kodak 5300. Has anyone compared the photo quality of these two All In One Photo printers on all grades of photo paper ? I'd appreciate as many replies as possible to help me decide which one of these I should buy.

   Alan Burstin at 11:33pm on Friday, April 20, 2007

9. I hate to be the first one to bring this up but what about Hewlett Packard printers? I have owned HP printers for about 8 years now and I am fine with paying a few CENTS more for higher quality prints. I went into a Best Buy store over the weekend to check out these new Kodak printers and I was very pleased to see that my current HP printer (6180 AiO) prints a higher quality picture on the equivalent paper compared to the same price point Kodak unit (5300 model). The Kodak unit was faster to print out the 4x6 picture but I mostly care about quality over speed and price since I display my pictures around the house and give them away to friends and family. I did not like the fact that the Kodak unit (5300 AiO) has an 5 in one cartridge. I seomtimes use a lot of green and blue with my outdoor photos and not so much red. If I were to own a Kodak unit I would be LOSING money by throwing away unsed ink. How does Kodak factor that into their cost per page?

   John at 09:40pm on Tuesday, April 24, 2007

10. At Popular Photography we consider separate ink tanks a positive feature since we have never, ever run out of all the inks at the same time on countless printers over the years. Our test prints used more yellow than the other colors, and on the Epson, Canon, and HP units we compared against the Kodak the yellow ran out first. Only the Epson had a second ink, light magenta, run out immediately after that, while the Canon and HP had quite a quantity of other inks left in the tanks.
    Kodak told us that it achieves its print numbers by using a test print that is made up of thumbnail images that represent the most common types of prints ordered at its online printing site. The Kodak test print also uses up CMY and K inks at nearly the same rate, thereby getting the highest quantity possible from the printer with the least waste. I imagine that very photo enthusiasts (our target audience) print photos that will use up all the inks at the same rate, so we will continue to test printers with a more typical assortment of images (flowers, nature, portraits, etc) that have saturated colors and other details. In that respect, our numbers will always differ from Kodak's.

    Michael J. McNamara at 12:11am on Friday, May 04, 2007

11. I just bought the Kodak 5300 printer and am happy with it. I wanted to scan my old photos and also to be able to make copies easier than using my old scanner. I can make a copy without the PC on which is very handy. Also I can put multiple photos on the scanner glass without having to position them and get separate jpeg files as a reault. For what I wanted this is perfect. And...the photo prints look great.

    Loraine at 09:18am on Sunday, May 06, 2007

12. The debate of separate ink tanks vs one combined tank goes on. Yes, if you use inks disproportionately (which is most common when printing large numbers of one print)you will strand some color ink in the remaining tank. If you mix your images the likely amount of stranded ink is very low. In comaprison, with a single 5 color tank you only replace it once for all the colors so your usage is much more predictable and your time between interventions is much higher. I have a 6 color separte tank system I have had about a year. The tanks are 4 to 5 ml and they cost $10. Now that I have been through a few of them the consumption is out of sync and it is very frustrating to change a tank, print 6 pix and need to change another tank. Then I print 14 pix and need to change another on. I have a dozen tanks in stock just to know I will have what I need to keep printing. Also, to get a good price I need to buy a 6 pack which defeats the purpose of single tanks and costs about $50 compared to Kodak's $15. But, I do get a lot more plastic and id chips with the singles. In the end I fear that is what I am really paying for anyway.
    Doug

    Douglas Watson at 02:39am on Tuesday, May 08, 2007

13. I've had my 5100 about 2 months now. 4 color tanks 2 black tanks later it still prints excellent quality, long lasting, water resistant prints and it is costing me much less to do so. For my printing habits it allows me to print better quality prints than the compatibles I used to use and I save money to boot. I don;t care if I don't use every drop of every color available or if it prints 179 instead of 180 4x6's. It works for me. Thank you Kodak please hurry and make a wide format printer.

    pookaloopa at 11:02am on Tuesday, May 08, 2007

14. I purchased a Kodak 5300 Printer when it first came out to replace a HP model that had finally given up all hope. I can't say enough how amazing the 5300 is everything about it makes me wonder why Kodak waits so long to enter into the market with their products. The printer has the ability to read the back of each type of Kodak paper. AND YES THE 3 STAR PAPER DOES INDEED HAVE A WATERMARk go pick up a back of 17.99 combo 3 star pack with 180 sheets of paper and a color cartridge. I'll be honest the prints looks amazing for $.10-$.12 cents! I'm sorry but for those of you comparing a Cannon to a Kodak ur talking about $22 (kodak) vs. $60-76 (cannon) to fill up on ink. Its like comparing a honda civic to a Hummer is you can afford the gas go for it but a honda civic gets you from point A to B too just without spending a ton of money on Gas!
    
    I was able to get about 300 Pages of Black Text print from my first Black cartridge which is awesome! 3 cents a print. Kodak has made an amazing product and just remember there's a reason why there are more honda civics on the road than Hummers!

    Brandon at 03:48am on Sunday, May 20, 2007

15. We just picked up a Kodak 5300 this weekend to go with a new Vista system (come with a Vista driver). Set up was a snap. Getting the printhead assy in was interesting. I've never seen a printer with a separate printhead assy. But it's probably a good thing.
    
    To me the point is the price of the ink and the quality of the photos. I don't care how many cartrigdes or inks it takes to produce good photos. Just do it. But don't clean out my bank account to buy ink cartridges and certainly don't ding me for a new one every 20 pages.
    
    I think Kodak has set a new price point for ink. I think with Kodak's offering on the table, other manufacturer's will re-think the price of their ink.
    
    Bottom line, this is a printer that produces great photos at a reasonable price. Best of all, my wife is happy with it and gets great results from her camera without my help. If my wife is happy, everyone's happy.
    
    By the way, we are using some real old photo paper. I'm not sure it is even Kodak paper. It's glossy on both sided without a watermark. Still happy with the results.

    Ken Clay at 09:45pm on Monday, June 04, 2007

16. Mmm, a variety of opinions on any brand is to be expected. I am not here to defend Kodak but what does concern me is the general lack of consistency with regards to the comparing of the different printers - specially when it comes to the opinions of supposed experts in the industry. All printer manufacturers can, and do, aggressively market/advertise their lowest achievable price per print even if this is not their best quality picture. Bottom line is that seperate cartridges do not automatically equal better quality. Not to mention the frequent and ill-timed trips to the store for yet another cartridge!! Even if the cost per print is not quite as low as Kodak claim it is still massively cheaper than all the competition. Why doesn't Popular Photography do a test of similiarly priced Canon, Epson & HP printers (including the Kodak 5300). Take the same image and print it on all the printers using the best quality paper the same manufacturer has to offer. Consider the ink cost, the paper cost and then consider the quality. I suggest that Kodak will win by a country mile in the cost category and perhaps come second only to Epson in quality - and this only being slightly more vibrant colours on the Epson.

    Martin Jon at 09:39pm on Thursday, June 14, 2007

17. I purchased the 5100 back in April 07' and in May had problems with software issues. After going round and round w/Kodak support, they shipped me a refurbished model, not new which has been working great up until last night.
    
    The picture quality and printing when this works is wonderful and I too am saving money on prints, but the hassle with partial printing I am having now is really frustrating. I am seriously thinking of canning this printer!!

    Suzanne at 02:17pm on Saturday, July 21, 2007

18. In response to Suzanne's comments, this is exactly why Best Buy sells their 24.99 service plan on their printers for 3 years. Any electronic can have problems. You could be one out of a thousand people who have that problem. I don't quite understand how a software issue with your computer would screw up your printer to where they would send you a refurb. There is a recent firmware update for the 5100 and the 5300 that increases the speed of the scanning bed.

    Brandon at 03:45pm on Saturday, July 21, 2007

19. I'd printed about 600 photos with the Kodak 5100 with no problem. The print is just a tiny bit grainier than the Canon i9600, but the color is more vibrant. Considering the cheap cost of the ink, it's a much better deal than the Canon or any other printer on the market. The Canon printhead got clogged after 1.5 years, and the cost of a new printhead and ink was more than the printer itself (so I threw it out).

    linh at 08:20pm on Thursday, October 04, 2007

20. I have owned this printer for 6 months without any problems. Prints are wonderful and ink is cheap. Only complaint is the software seems buggy (latest version of easyshare is better but still crashes).

    nambi at 03:53pm on Friday, October 19, 2007

21. Just purchased a 5300 yesterday. Today, sadly, it's going back for a refund because it isn't supported by windows 2000. We are NOT impressed.

    John K at 01:42pm on Thursday, November 15, 2007

22. Good Luck finding any printer that is supported by windows 2000! Sounds like its time for an operatin system upgrade!

    Brandon at 11:51pm on Thursday, November 15, 2007

23. Bought an AIO 5300 recently.
    
    1 Photo.
    
    That was all I could print. Then, the well known "replace printhead" trouble. Still awaiting a solution by the Kodak "service" department. Update the Firmware, yada yada yada. Did not resolve anything. I'm losing patience with these clowns rapidly; contemplating in ernest of asking my money back.

    M. DelaM at 08:54pm on Thursday, November 22, 2007

24. Phoned Kodak again, after they failed to reply to my mail. They told me to wait 72 h for a technician to reply. The printer is on its way back to the store. Great Service, Kodak! Muppets.

    M. DelaM at 09:33am on Friday, November 23, 2007

25. I managed to get the 5300 to work with Windows 2000. I installed it on XP, referenced the file and registry changes, copied the files/folders and imported the Local_Machine (LM) registry entries (after carefully checking there were no non-standard elements), rebooted and bingo! I don't get all the funtionality (like scanning directly and image transfer to computer) but if all you want is to be able to print this works perfectly. You can still copy/scan/write/read locally on the printer and transfer to memory card then quickly pop the same into your computer for image transfer as needed. If anyone wants a walkthrough let me know?

    Wolf at 04:55pm on Saturday, November 24, 2007

26. I have had this printer for a few months now and it has been nothing but trouble. I wish I had never bought it, I had a hp printer for a number of years and it was great. I thought it was time to upgrade and I was taken in by the adverts that I would use less ink. Well I didn`t realise that the reason would be that it won`t print A4 size photographs. Yes, I have been in touch with Kodak.

    bill macfarlane at 08:19pm on Sunday, December 02, 2007

27. In Regards to Bill Macfarlane you can print A4 size photographs by using the kodak easyshare software on the computer. But how could this be relevent to it being nothing but trouble?

    Brandon at 04:41am on Monday, December 03, 2007

28. It is nothing but trouble because I keep getting error messages. It will print 6+4 prints no bother whatsoever. Switch to printing A4 size and it tells me that the paper is wrong side up. Now I have been in touch with Kodak and they have sent an email telling me how to solve the problem which leads me to believe that this is an occurring problem. I follow the instructions and it works for a while and then the message re-appears and I have to go through the same procedure to get it to print A4 Photographs, now that to me is more trouble than it is worth

    bill macfarlane at 09:37am on Monday, December 03, 2007

29. Just purchased the 5300. Took a while to set it up. Printed 1 photo, looked great. Tried the copy function, slow, but worked just fine. Then trouble hit. I have WordPerfect 12. This is what I use for all my documents. It kept saying "load A4 or 8 1/2" x 11" paper. I was trying to print to 8 1/2" x 11". The photo tray was all the way out. No matter what I'd do it wouldn't work, so I went to the website to download firmware as instructed. Didn't work. Got ahold of a representative who told me "it doesn't work with WordPerfect products below 13.0! I couldn't believe it. They're working on it! Do I return it? Believe it's going to be fixed? Never dreamed I'd have that problem. What other programs won't it print off of? What a total dissapoingtment. And the bother of returning it. Man, what a pain!

    karen d at 04:47am on Thursday, December 06, 2007

30. Sales lady at Sams Club showed me the 5300. We need to send out pictures for Christmas and this looked great. Just $99.76 and the cost of print cartridges was less than half of other printers. This should pay for itself very quickly. Got two, one for house and the other for a gift or maybe the office.
    CAREFULLY followed all instructions and slowly put all the parts in place. Printed the calibration sheet, put it in tray to scan, push start and BAM Error Code 6203 shows on display. Error code 6203 is not in any of the documentation. Error code 6203 is not in the Kodak Knowledge Base or avalable anywhere in their support website. I suspected a problem with the Scanner.
    So used Google and found this site with all these complaints for the 5300.
    I should have known, inside the box is a paper with a big red stop sign that says DO NOT RETURN TO THE STORE, call Kodak technical support. What is the name of the comedian that says "Here's Your Sign" Bill Engvall?
    Well I feel like a dope for not seeing it. As a consumer, it sure looks like Kodak is dumping this product at fire sale prices on trusting people. Then we spend time, energy and frustration to identify,download and correct defective software. Hey I have a full time job, I am not willing to work for Kodak for free. I will not dink around with a non-functioning product that Factory already knows about. Thank goodness I did not give this as a gift or take this to the office to spend company time on Kodak's problem.
    Kodak, you can fix this yourself after Sam's Club sends it back. Good luck selling it again. Hope other people read this before they purchase from Kodak.
    Don't bother with sending me an email, I am gone and there's YOUR sign Kodak.

    Shane at 02:47am on Monday, December 10, 2007

31. error code 6203 is an easy fix dissconnect the power and plug it back in.

    Brandon at 04:49am on Monday, December 10, 2007

32. I think it is only fair to update my comments on this printer. I have downloaded the latest firmware from Kodak. I have recalibrated the media sensor and followed the instructions to reset all settings and I have printed a A 4 size photograph which is stunning. I hope this it fixed and I will get no more error messages, we will wait and see with trepidation.

    bill macfarlane at 10:58pm on Monday, December 10, 2007

33. Hmmm... and I wanted to like this printer so much.
    Before I got it out of the box a note printed in brilliant RED said it wont work with a Mac running
    the latest OS unless I update the printers firmware.
    No Problem, takes a few minuets, not hard. My first print was a picture on plain paper, it printed fine but the red was washed out. Printed it to the 4x6 photo paper and it looks GREAT! The scanner scans fine right into photoshop too. I called Kodak about the poor reproduction of red and they were very nice and walked me through cleaning the head, still didn't help. THe funny thing is the test print I was using with support was a Kodak FAQ page and each time I printed it the Kodak logo comes out in pink. All the other colors look fine. How can a company design a printer that can't even print out it's on logo correctly? OUCH!

    Dominic at 01:26am on Thursday, January 03, 2008

34. Purchased the Kodak 5300 from Walmart for $99 after inquiring if they had the ink and paper for the machine. The salesman assured me they did. I should have checked. They don't. What sold me on this machine was the fact Kodak said they use pigment based ink which will NOT fade in a lifetime. No one wants their pictures bleaching out even if hidden away from light.
    
    Photo Shop Elements 2 can't understand the Kodak print drivers. Although the pictures are WOW in detail and color, the print is off an eighth of an inch to the side. PSE actually prints better color and detail than Kodak Easy Share. Nero can't figure out the drivers either as it leaves a border around the picture. I can live with both situations as they aren't for sale pictures.
    
    I tried printing some photos after loading new photo paper into the machine last night. It turned out a couple blank copies and finally told me. "Turn the photo paper over dummy! You are trying to print on the wrong side." Okay, maybe not those exact words but close. Gotta love a machine smarter than me.
    
    I hate the Kodak Easy Share as pictures must be imported into it's photo album to be printed. Or maybe I just haven't figured it out yet? Easy Share is really a byte heavy program. It takes my HP computer running one meg of memory almost a minute to load the program. And who the heck is dumb enough to be opening up their computer to the net to share pictures??? I want to share pics I attach them to an email. I don't let anyone hook into my computer!
    
    Shall we talk about scanning? I scanned a 4X6 pick at 1200 dpi and it took Kodak over three minutes to scan that puppy. My Epson Photo Scanner can do it in less than ten seconds.
    
    The bottom line is Kodak is a nice photo printer. Pigment based non fade ink is worth a lot to me if it's true. Forget the 10 cents a picture. I don't care if it costs forty cents as long as the photos last. The photos are WOW using Adobe photo software to print. Using the Epson scanner and other software brings the Kodak Printer to over a thousand dollars to print a photo. This doesn't even begin to mention the time it takes to work around to get a decent photo cleaned up, loaded, and printed.
    
    I like the Kodak 5300 but I hate their software and drivers. I can't recommend the 5300 as a photo scanner as who wants to wait three to four minutes for each high resolution scan? We are talking about thousands of pictures going onto a terabyte HD. The Kodak is for individuals who aren't serious. But for $99 it's a bargain for printing pictures now and then. I'll let you know in ten or fifteen years when I pull those supposedly non fade pics out if it really was a bargain.

    Barb at 03:45pm on Saturday, January 05, 2008

35. After all the hype on the Kodak 5300 I am disappointed in its performance.
    After about a week of good results, print quality deteriorated and despite all my efforts, calibration, cleaning printhead etc. no good.
    Kodak should point out also that if one of the cartridges is empty the machine is inoperable. I have a black cartridge full, but warning light is on that colour needs replacing, so no function!
    I have read that the printhead on this machine has proved unreliable and am wondering now if this will need to be
    replaced. Cave emptor !

    Kevin at 09:18am on Wednesday, January 23, 2008

36. i bought the kodak 5300 and at first it was great i swaped to windows visa from xp and now printer has a mind of its own.cartrides seem to run out very very fast. colour is very poor and clabration doesnt show up yellow on the calabration sheet everything seems to point out it needs new printer head kodak not helpful and pc world dont want to know i think the best place for this printer is the dustbin i def wouldnt recommend this printer at all its nothing but trouble and have spend hours trying to get solutions and ££££s on ink and different paper and its no better i bought it for the kodak name but just goes to show name doesnt guarentee good results even names like kodak pitty

    tracey smith at 05:34pm on Sunday, January 27, 2008

37. Hey Wolf, comment #25, I certainly could use a walkthrough on installing the driver on Windows 2000.
    
    You can reach me at
    
    
    Thanks,
    Nick

    Nick at 10:01am on Monday, February 04, 2008

38. I just replaced the color cartridge for the first time and when I calibrated it, there was no magenta. I waited a little whil and then did it again with the same result. What now? (Kodak Easy Share 5300)

    Cory Coker at 03:55pm on Wednesday, March 19, 2008

39. Reading the above, it looks like I narrowly missed being lumbered with a useless heap of junk. Fortunately, I didn't even get as far as finding out how bad it is in operation and I have a good case to replace it. Despite the slip of paper that begs customers not to return the product to the shop, that is precisely what you should do if the product fails to perform as expected. Your contract is with the shop at which it was purchased and they are legally obliged to replace or refund faulty goods.
    
    My operating system is Mac OS X 10.4.11 (brought out on November 14, 2007). The minimum system requirements for the 5300 (for Mac) is OS X 10.4.8 (brought out on September 29, 2006) "or later". Well, correct me if I'm wrong but 11 is a higher number than 8 and 2007 is later than 2006 so why won't the installation software install it on my system?
    
    With OS X 10.4, it's the first time that Apple has brought out a version number higher than 9 and Kodak hasn't caught up with that. Consequently, it reads 10.4.11 as "10.4.1" and ignores the last digit.
    
    They've had six months to sort this out. But it seems that Kodak's approach to sorting out their problems is to put a note in the box asking customers not to return it to the shop (presumably because they know it's a heap of junk). IGNORE THIS. It is not a legal requirement; it's a request. More to the point: it's a request for customers to disregard their statutory legal rights.

    Ron Tocknell at 10:39pm on Thursday, March 27, 2008

40. I have had the printer for about 5 months now and it is flawless. I print a lot of photos (going on 400 4x6 and 10 8x10) and lots of text documents (well over 4000 pages so far) and this printer has been excellent so far.
    
    The photos are really good quality... no complaints at all. Here is a good review (and counteropinion) to the pop photo review:
    
    http://www.squidoo.com/Kodak-5300-printer-review

    joedoe at 11:04pm on Monday, April 07, 2008