Regarding being big, it was erroneously suggested that is bad.
Bigger size, even if all else were equal which it seldom is, is a very desirable thing.
Bigger means lesser size limitations for gears, springs, plastic tabs, fuser heat dissipation, drum and cartridge size, etc, etc. Smaller means higher heat density, tighter paper path,
In other words, only a stupid fool thinks smaller is better unless it's on an airplane or in some economized oriental hotel slat. This printer was not designed to fit within your back pocket wearing spandex jeans, it was designed to do well as a printer.
Do realize I am not shilling Lexmark, I would rather buy from most other manufacturers than those toner and ink whoring bassturds, but at the same time we need to stop perpetuating the idiotic idea that smaller is better unless you live in a shoebox.
Smaller is never better when it comes to anything mechanical, if all else is equal then smaller is always, always, a negative thing. Especially so when talking about a 2nd element, how much paper will bend in the printer before it remains permanently more curled that you wanted a flat piece of paper to be.
If you want some small cheap junk printer by all means buy one. If you want something not so problematic, you want the largest size per dollar you can find. Per page printing cost is another story, subject to more than one variable like toner capacity, cost whether the drum is integral or not, whether a cartridge is user-refillable, etc.
These things weren't mentioned though, my comment is only addressing detrimental ideal that we are supposed to want smaller as if it is good when it is exactly the problem and thing to avoid.
Paris, because even if you don't live in Texas, smaller is less of a good thing more often than not.