So, does the new orientation improve the print speed of the Brother MFC-J4510DW? Brother claims speeds of 12ppm for both black and colour print and our five-page text document gave 7.3ppm. In draft mode, this increased to 12ppm exactly and the 20-page document, back in normal mode, gave 10.9ppm.
Duplex is standard on the printer and the 20-page document printed at 5.7 sides per minute, which is a good speed for an inkjet. A single page copy took 16s from the glass and a five page text copy took 50s from the ADF. 15 x 10cm photos, from the rear feeder, took an average of 1:15. You can print to the machine from a phone or tablet using the Android iPrint & Scan utility.
Compare these speeds with the Brother MFC-J6710DW a £250, full A3 inkjet which prints conventionally. It managed a maximum speed of 9.0ppm, around 20 percent slower than this machine.
Plain paper print quality has always been a bit problematic on Brother inkjets and things haven’t really improved here. There’s still lots of fuzziness around characters, due to unwanted ink flow or dot control.
Colours are smooth, though not particularly bright, and registration of black over colour is good. Photos are well reproduced, with good, solid colours and plenty of fine detail, though darker shades tend to lose definition.
Brother won’t talk about how it ripples the paper to print landscape, but we wonder if it’s connected with the flapping noise it makes when feeding each sheet, which saw a noise level of 71dBA at 0.5m. This is loud – like a vacuum cleaner at 1m, though only for a moment for each sheet.
Using four, high-yield cartridges gives page costs of 2.8p and 7.2p, neither of which is high for this class of machine, but both of which are bettered by the same Brother MFC-J6710DW (1.8p and 5.3p, respectively).
While the Brother MFC-J4510DW’s innovation of printing pages in landscape mode makes for a neater printer and some increase in speed, it’s hard to get too excited. It looks a lot better than Brothers fax-like older all-in-ones, but the plain paper print quality is still the poorest of the ‘big four’ brands and some of its rivals undercut its running costs, too.