Which printer?

I am thinking of getting a dedicated photo printer but the more I read the more I get confused, so any experience would be welcome. Problems I have come across include inks that are good for glossy paper are less so for matt; some printers use a lot of ink at start--up if the printer hasn't been used for a while. I will only use it occasionally but would rather get the best quality to meet my criteria which are:
A3 or A3+ maximum
Good longevity for prints, and exhibition quality
Reasonable cartridge life and replacement costs
Not bothered about B/W so prefer more colour cartridges
A front-loading option would be preferred due to the height taken up by a top-loader

Any suggestions?

Cannot go wrong with a epson printer good photos and a range of third party inks which match the epson genuine inks

Dave

Thanks Dave, the front runner on paper so far is the Epson SureColor SC-P400. As it's a new model there may be some price-dropping and I am in no rush.

I was a long suffering Epson advocate. I give up after yet another R2400 died on me. I bout a little canon ix6550 for under £150 and loved it! No more clogging blocked heads after not using the things for longer than a week! I now use a canon 9500, more expensive but just as fantastic!!

I used to have a HP which used to produce great prints but then that died I brought an EPSON XP-850 (all in one) which also produces stunning prints on PermaJet papers.

I fixed my last Epson with a hammer now it is now more it is no bother.

I am also looking for a printer. I have an HP that is now around 10 years old, but have not used it for 2 years or more. I am just reigniting my love for photography. The problems I have encountered in the past which I found frustrating was what I got form the printer never really matched how the image looked on my lap top, colour wise and contrast wise. I never seemed to be able to get the borders even on the prints and sometimes borders would not appear on one side perhaps. I realise this may have been more to do with my inexperience. I expect things in the printer world will have changed since I bought the HP. I am wondering if I would also be better buying a standalone monitor to use with my lap top just for printing purposes, my thoughts are that I would, somehow, be able to sync this better with a printer so I could get a much better colour and contrast match. Is there any evidence out there that suggests in the future we will be able to move away from ink basked printers and still get outstanding prints produced, without breaking the bank?

I had an Epson 1400 (A3) with a Permajet CIS (Continous Ink System) , the Permajet Inks were nice and colours good but the CIS itself was a pain in the ass, gave me numerous headaches poor quality and not worth a fraction of what it cost, I go as far as saying it was crap.
The heads on the 1400 also tended to block up too easily, my previous printer was also an Epson (a cheap A4 model) and came with a £30 Chinese CIS, it lasted around 6 years cost me a total of about £25 in ink and hardly ever gave me trouble, you don't always get what you pay for.

When the 1400 gave up the ghost I bought a cheap Brother 3 in 1, it runs flawlessly, unfortunately the print's leave a lot to be desired as it only has basic CMY & Black, whatever you get make sure it has 6 colours plus the black.

If you don't fancy the expense of Manufacturers Inks then consider a model that will take refillable cartridges, much less hassle than a CIS and just as economical.

Used a Canon ix6550 and had some success with this using the Canon inks. I have been using Stinky ink lately and started to get a green tone on B & W prints but that may have been caused by problems with my eyes etc. H twiddled on with the setting and have printed a couple of mono images which I'm happy with and am waiting for a third party to look at them and comment. I was considering the Canon Pro 100s which seems to get good reviews but am also looking to change my monitor too.