Top 10 3D Printers - Make: Magazine

Make: magazine has done what we can't, as individuals, do alone: they've done side-by-side comparisons of 3D printers to sort out which are the best of the bunch. In the 2015 Shootout, the magazine's test team, led by Anna Kaziunas France, has come up with a list of 10 top performing 3D printers across 9 categories. The 3D printers are ranked on performance, affordability, and other parameters. The best overall from their shootout was the Ultimaker 2; see the full article for the other 9 top contenders: http://3dprint.com/23676/make-magazine-top-10-printers/


Below is a look at the test team reviewing 3D printers in Youngstown, Ohio:
http://3dprint.com/wp-content/upload...hootout-15.jpg

Only FFF printers winning the categories. I guess resin will make a better showing next year when more models are readily available - and more resin types.

Hmm, I might have been more impressed if ther 5th gen makerbot hadn't won an award.

Full of shiny tech - maybe. But most of it doesn't seem to work reliably and surely lack of a heated printbed has to count against it.

I'm wondering if these are like the 'Which' awards - despite their protestations of impartiality - always seem to be massively skewed towards companies with a lot of money and marketing expertise.

And you're right about it being odd that there are only fff machines there. Some of them are definitely in the form labs cost bracket. And for sheer quality the sla machines can't be beaten by fff.

Probably the only one in that list I definitely wouldn't argue with would be the Ultimaker 2

I presume we have to buy the magazine to find the the details of why each machine won an award.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curious aardvark

I presume we have to buy the magazine to find the the details of why each machine won an award.

---

Is your Yorkshire ancestry showing a bit there?

lol - could be :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curious aardvark

Hmm, I might have been more impressed if ther 5th gen makerbot hadn't won an award.

Full of shiny tech - maybe. But most of it doesn't seem to work reliably and surely lack of a heated printbed has to count against it.

I'm wondering if these are like the 'Which' awards - despite their protestations of impartiality - always seem to be massively skewed towards companies with a lot of money and marketing expertise.

And you're right about it being odd that there are only fff machines there. Some of them are definitely in the form labs cost bracket. And for sheer quality the sla machines can't be beaten by fff.

Probably the only one in that list I definitely wouldn't argue with would be the Ultimaker 2

I presume we have to buy the magazine to find the the details of why each machine won an award.

---

I bought the first review issue they put out and found it valuable at the time since I was still wet around the ears. However, looking at it now, in I think its 3rd iteration, it just seems like a giant snooze fest. The selection is typically limited, as if they only review printers from select manufacturers and the same people always win every year. I'd much rather have a technical review of many different printers, rather than a stacked shoot-out between a few. At the end of the day, no one really cares what printer comes in at number one, because it may not fit their budget or some other specific criteria.

Make Magazine cannot do impartial reviews. Having the RepGen5 on the list destroys all believability in their journalistic integrity. Make Media attempts to be the top 3DP resource... But they can't because their writers are not heavy 3DP operators and without constant printing experience as well as an ability to tear down and maintain a variety of bots there's no way they can be an authority on the subject.

Not surprised they ignored China again (well, showed significant selection bias). Appeals to patriotism didn't work for cars or any other manufactured goods, excluding high quality 3D printers from the ratings won't save Western manufacturers if they won't up their game and compete on quality.