Pocket-lint is supported by its readers. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

(Pocket-lint) - Canon is hoping that when it comes to printing users will opt to print on its range of compact printers, but can its Selphy range match up to its Ixus camera models?

Design wise and the Slephy doesn’t match up in the slightest. The overly large printer (well for a compact model anyway) is just as wide as both the Epson and HP alternative, but rather than opt to create a compact model canon has gone for a wider footprint. It doesn’t help matters further when the Selphy insists on requiring a further 10 centimetres out the back of the model for printing purposes.

Like other compact photo printers from other manufacturers the printers main controls are found on the top of the model surrounding a 2.5 inch screen.

From here you can search for specific photos on memory cards by date, zoom into images and trim before you print.

Unlike other printers however Canon’s interface leaves a lot to be desired and you’ve got to use a lot of guesswork to get a grasp of what is going on.

Get past the controls and the printer offers the standard 6x4 inch printing and a card reader for owners of CompactFlash and SD (Sony, Olympus, and Fujifilm owners need look elsewhere). The limiting memory card options shows that Canon is really only keen for you to use the printer with its range of printers - which is a shame.

While usability is for us is high on the list when it comes to rating, a printer’s got to perform just as well.

In our test shots the default settings seemed to be a lot brighter than our results of the same image with other compact photo printers we’ve tested.

Yes the printed images come out smudgeproof, waterproof and everything elseproof, its just this brightness meant that some information was blanched out compared to other test shots.


We expected so much more from the Selphy and too be honest were very disappointed by the styling and the results.

The DS810's footprint and further printing space requirements means its not that compact either.

Even worse, the print quality unfortunately doesn't make up for the design.

Writing by Stuart Miles. Originally published on 2 March 2006.