Product Reviews

The X prefix denotes that Lexmark aims this printer at small-to-medium businesses, but that's ambitious at this price. We'd suggest it's much better suited to small offices right down to personal use.

Mono text documents had only the faintest trace of spidering, perfectly acceptable for an inkjet. The text was a true black, just like the HP C4180 when using its Black cartridge. And while documents weren't produced at anything like the quoted 22ppm, 9ppm puts the Canon MP180 to shame and thoroughly embarrasses the HP with its Black cartridge. Draft quality prints are only slightly lighter and are hurled out at 12ppm - slower than the 20ppm from the HP, but without the nasty blur.

If the amount of mono documents you print doesn't justify a laser printer, the Lexmark is a compelling choice, especially since mono documents cost a comparable amount to the frugal HP. Standard quality prints cost 2.6p with the high-yield cartridge, to the 2p of the HP high-yield Black. The Canon costs an outrageous 6.8p per page even with its high-yield cartridge. High-yield cartridges aren't supplied with the X5470, though, so look out for cartridge numbers 34 (mono) and 35 (colour). The former should last a respectable

ADVERTISEMENT

475 pages.

The case for purchasing the Lexmark becomes weaker if photos and images are particularly important. Costs are still reasonable, with 6 x 4in prints at 9.1p per page if you use the Photo ink. But most images suffer from a yellow hue, making people look slightly jaundiced. We noticed a lack of fine detail too. The HP, by contrast, gets colours and detail spot on. We also found the HP's LCD screen much easier to use than the two-line dot matrix here, particularly when printing from media cards (the X5470 takes all the common formats). The Lexmark does support PictBridge, at least.

Photocopies can use either the flatbed scanner or the single-page document feeder on top. Pages are generally produced in around 30 seconds from the flatbed, and the results are very good. Whether copying mono or colour documents, the copies ape the original very closely. Scans to file are the best of all three MFDs, with bold colours and the least grain and striping. Scan times were 30 seconds quicker than the disappointing HP scans, but 30 seconds slower than the almost-as-poor Canon. We were impressed with the OCR software too, not only for its ease of use, but also for the results. A few intuitive clicks gave us an RTF file that closely resembled the complex test document on the scanner. Our bar chart was the only major casualty, but the table of data and stylised formatting was reproduced well and the standard font text was flawless.

If you're more concerned with text-based documents and running costs, the Lexmark is an excellent choice, especially with the thrifty high-yield cartridges. Photos and images are its downfall, though, so if that's more important go for the HP C4180 or, preferably, the A-Listed 3210. But for office work, the Lexmark is a steal, especially considering the fax.