Automotive Deals HPCC Shop Women's Clothing Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Enter for the chance to win front row seats to Barbra Streisand Segway miniPro
Customer Review

139 of 144 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Does exactly what Canon says it will do., September 25, 2010
This review is from: Canon SELPHY CP800 Black Compact Photo Printer (4350B001) (Office Product)
Vine Customer Review of Free Product (What's this?)
This printer does exactly what it is advertised to do.

It is easy to set up. It is easy to use. The photographs looks very good. The 4 x 6 photos print in about a minute. Supposedly they last for many, many years. The viewing screen is large enough and looks good. There are basic operations, such as red eye reduction and back-light correction that are useful and easy to use. You can also print in black and white or sepia which is something I like to do, so I appreciate that ability. The owner's manual makes sense and is easy to comprehend, and is not overly complicated. Inserting the ink cartridge and the paper is easy.

I didn't hook this printer up to my computer. I use it with memory cards. It is very easy to use with memory cards. I have not and do not plan to plug it into my computer, so I have no experience with that ability of the machine.

In short, this thing does exactly what the Amazon description and Canon advertising says it will do.

The only problem I see is the cost of the prints. Each 4 x 6 print will cost about 25-30 cents, which isn't overly high, but it is more than twice what I can get prints made for in local stores. Add the cost of the machine, and that will be pretty expensive. However, that cost isn't any surprise, as it can be figured BEFORE you buy this machine.

My wife has commandeered this machine to use for "scrap booking" and she finds it very useful to be able to get any picture she wants, when she wants it, by sticking a memory card in the machine and printing out the few pictures she wants. And she doesn't have to wait around for someone else to develop the pictures and get them back to us. The machine is also very compact and easy to carry around with all of her other scrap booking stuff when she goes to her scrap booking "parties." For that type of use, this is an excellent machine.

As I have had this machine for less than a month, I can not comment on its long-term reliability, but it does seem to be built very well. However, the only other Canon printer I have ever owned did not fare so well in long term reliability, so that does concern me. (Note in the past, if you search my reviews, I have given a Canon printer a 1-star review because it died way too soon.)

Personally, I would like a machine that prints 5 x 7's. If I was buying a printer, I would buy one that has the ability to print 5 x 7's. But I was given this machine, so I can't really complain about that.

To sum up, this machine appears to be an excellent choice for anyone who wants 4 x 6 prints. It works exactly as Canon says it does. It works well. It makes very good prints. But I think the per-print cost to be a bit high, so I knocked the rating down to four stars.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 2 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-5 of 5 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 24, 2010 2:14:55 AM PST
While I can't speak to this particular model's durability, I've got a muche earlier related one (Canon CP200) from 2004 which has held up like a champ.

Posted on Nov 24, 2010 7:58:55 AM PST
theDyker says:
I don't understand knocking off a star for the price of the prints (about 30c each) when all you have to do is research how much the paper costs before purchasing. I can see mentioning it in your review, but not knocking a star off as if that is a defect you found after purchase.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 10, 2010 3:56:57 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 12, 2010 7:22:58 AM PST
Terry L says:
I didn't say it was "a defect". I said the prints were a bit expensive compared to other ways of printing. Gasoline is expensive too, but I buy it. And while gasoline does what it does very well, I would give gasoline a higher rating too if it didn't cost so much.

And, as I said in my review, and I quote, "However, that cost isn't any surprise, as it can be figured BEFORE you buy this machine."

If the prints cost less, I would give this machine a 5 star rating. They do not cost less, so the machine does not rate a 5 star review to me. If the prints cost only 1 cent a piece, I would yell "wahoo" and give the machine a 6 star rating. But they cost what they cost. It does not matter when you find that out, either before you buy the machine or after you buy it. That does not change the reality of the cost of the prints. And because of the cost of the prints, I did not give this machine a 5 star rating. And that is my opinion because this is my review. Yours may be different. You can say so in your own review of the machine.

I have to rate the machine as I see it, because that is my responsibility when I review something.

Posted on Dec 15, 2010 7:05:05 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 15, 2010 1:02:57 PM PST
T. Turdag says:
Dear Mr. Crock,

Would you do me a favor? Could you please contact me at pilotbest@hotmai..... I need your help about this printer.

Thanks in advance,

Posted on Nov 27, 2011 2:11:42 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 29, 2012 4:38:38 AM PST
Hy Voltage says:
Regarding the per-print cost:
I consider this printer to be, in effect, a replacement for the Polaroid model of instant photo developing. To be honest, I wish Polaroid-style instant photography still existed. Even in these modern digital times, I think there is still a place in this world for a camera that will produce a "hard copy" photo that self-develops right there on the spot with no further handling or processing whatsoever. But that no longer exists, so the best we can do is to have a semi-portable printer that we can hook our digicams to and print photos reasonably promptly, without going to the added step of later uploading them to a computer and THEN printing them at a later date.

Anyway, in my own long-winded way, what I'm saying is that if a "snapshot photo printer" is the modern digital-era equivalent of (or more accurately, "substitute for") a Polaroid camera, then the Polaroid system is what we should be comparing prices to. Polaroid photos used to cost about a buck-and-a-half to two bucks per picture. If a portable, PC-less printer produces prints for 30 cents a piece, that's a LOT cheaper than a Polaroid photo, so I'm not going to complain about the price. (And of course, a 4 X 6 print is more than twice the size of a Polaroid, so there's that, too.)
‹ Previous 1 Next ›