Cannon IP5000 or Epson R300?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mikey
  • Start date Start date
M

Mikey

Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.

Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either printer?


Thanks

Mikey
 
Mikey said:
Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.

Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either printer?


Thanks

Mikey
Click to expand...

Ink/photos fade less with the Epson than the Canon if that is an issue for
you - but I've got an IP4000 and apart from that it's a great machine.
 
Mikey said:
Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.

Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either printer?
Click to expand...

I have the iP5000, which I believe is the world's first 1 pl dot ink jet
printer. It's capable of 9600 dpi resolution which produces visibly
grander photos, something the iP4000 (really a reworked i860) with
its 2 pl dots can't match up close. I also have the i860 and know this.
Of course, looking at the photos from a distance they would appear
"identical". How fussy are you? :-). But looking close you see a
sharper, more detailed image. More focussed (because of the smaller
dots). This is really noticeable in graphics too. I was quite amazed as
I do a lot of printing at the highest resolution. Epson's Glossy Photo
Paper and Costco's Kirkland Professional Glossy Photo Paper work
beautifully.

I don't know the Epson R300 at all as I left the Epson organization" a
few years ago. I prefer the Canon line of printers and their user
friendly cartridge system, unlike Epson's electronic chip ones. If you
refill, or buy 3rd party cartridges, you're better off with the Canon
line. I run my iP5000 with 3rd party cartridges made in China/filled
with US Formulabs ink. One bonus the Epson R300 printer has (I believe
it has?...) is the capability of printing on special CDRs. The Canons in
North America have this capability removed - copyright reasons.

-Taliesyn
 
Taliesyn said:
I have the iP5000, which I believe is the world's first 1 pl dot ink
jet printer. It's capable of 9600 dpi resolution which produces
visibly grander photos, something the iP4000 (really a reworked i860)
with its 2 pl dots can't match up close. I also have the i860 and know
this. Of course, looking at the photos from a distance they would
appear "identical". How fussy are you? :-). But looking close you see
a sharper, more detailed image. More focussed (because of the smaller
dots). This is really noticeable in graphics too. I was quite amazed
as I do a lot of printing at the highest resolution. Epson's Glossy
Photo Paper and Costco's Kirkland Professional Glossy Photo Paper work
beautifully.

I don't know the Epson R300 at all as I left the Epson organization" a
few years ago. I prefer the Canon line of printers and their user
friendly cartridge system, unlike Epson's electronic chip ones. If you
refill, or buy 3rd party cartridges, you're better off with the Canon
line. I run my iP5000 with 3rd party cartridges made in China/filled
with US Formulabs ink. One bonus the Epson R300 printer has (I believe
it has?...) is the capability of printing on special CDRs. The Canons
in North America have this capability removed - copyright reasons.

-Taliesyn
Click to expand...

I really wonder why then ip4000 is found better than ip5000 on most
reviews(not just that famopus one you all mention).
And really...using Canon Photo Pro or Glossy plus paper you can't see any
dots or similar. and if you calculate 4800 or 9600 dpi, it's so much than
even with lower resolutions human eye can't see two dots so close together,
so that 9600 dpi is more add than real usefullness.
Anyway, this dpi is not mechanical but interpolated...
 
The R800 uses pigment inks. the printer costs about $400 and the ink
replacement is about $120.00.
 
measekite said:
The R800 uses pigment inks. the printer costs about $400 and the ink
replacement is about $120.00.
Click to expand...


Sure, in USA... her the price is doubled... (most of Europe) It ain't that
much better as price is higher...
 
Taliesyn said:
I have the iP5000, which I believe is the world's first 1 pl dot ink jet
printer. It's capable of 9600 dpi resolution which produces visibly
grander photos, something the iP4000 (really a reworked i860) with
its 2 pl dots can't match up close. I also have the i860 and know this.
Click to expand...

All of the publications who do reviews (PCWorld, PC Mag, Cnet etc)
concurr that while the IP5000 is substantially better for business
documents it is marginally inferior on photos and somewhat slower.
Maybe you see what you want to see.
Of course, looking at the photos from a distance they would appear
"identical". How fussy are you? :-). But looking close you see a
sharper, more detailed image. More focussed (because of the smaller
dots). This is really noticeable in graphics too. I was quite amazed as
I do a lot of printing at the highest resolution. Epson's Glossy Photo
Paper and Costco's Kirkland Professional Glossy Photo Paper work
beautifully.

I don't know the Epson R300 at all
Click to expand...

My friend is on his 3rd Epson R300 this year due to the feed system for
printing CDs. He prints a lot of them but after a while he notices
slippage. The R300 uses more ink and is more expensive to run than a
Canon IP4000, the best value in the Canon line.
 
The IP8500 is Canon's flagship model being the narrow carriage Pixma
version of the award winning i9900. It came out after the IP5000. I
certainly would like to know why they did not go with a 1 picoliter drop
size. Maybe they are using the IP5000 to prove it in the field before
they use it in the remaining models.

Anyway, I certainly would like to know the answer.
 
measekite said:
The IP8500 is Canon's flagship model being the narrow carriage Pixma
version of the award winning i9900. It came out after the IP5000. I
certainly would like to know why they did not go with a 1 picoliter
drop size. Maybe they are using the IP5000 to prove it in the field
before they use it in the remaining models.

Anyway, I certainly would like to know the answer.
Click to expand...

Yep, me too...i think it might be something regarding general Canon head
quality, since reporst of failures are not so rare.
Now, since they didn't even solve 2pl head problem, putting out 1pl one is
quite courageous step...
But, on the other hand, maybe mechanics is not yet so developed as drop
size, so it's useless to have 1pl drops if head is not able to have so small
step, so at the end you get very small color dot, then some very small white
space, another very small dot, another very small white space etc....result
is worse than if you have 2pl drops and no white space.
 
SleeperMan said:
I really wonder why then ip4000 is found better than ip5000 on most
reviews(not just that famopus one you all mention).
And really...using Canon Photo Pro or Glossy plus paper you can't see any
dots or similar. and if you calculate 4800 or 9600 dpi, it's so much than
even with lower resolutions human eye can't see two dots so close together,
so that 9600 dpi is more add than real usefullness.
Anyway, this dpi is not mechanical but interpolated...
Click to expand...

I find photos from the iP5000 virtually grain free; not so from the
i860/iP4000 series.

I was always hoping for a printer that could one day deliver a photo
that up close would look like a photo lab print, that is, grain free.
I think this is as close as we're gonna get unless Canon invents one
with .5 picoliter dots. I'm sure there's one on the horizon...

-Taliesyn
 
measekite said:
All of the publications who do reviews (PCWorld, PC Mag, Cnet etc)
concurr that while the IP5000 is substantially better for business
documents it is marginally inferior on photos and somewhat slower.
Maybe you see what you want to see.
Click to expand...

Marginally means very little. It prints photos any way I tell it to.
It's me who makes the final remastering adjustments. And "somewhat
slower" means nothing to me either, I'm home all day. If a print takes
10, 20, 30 seconds longer, so what, it's probably because it's printing
them at 9600 dpi instead of the i860/iP4000 dpi of 4800. Anyway, I have
the i860 and I don't find the iP5000 noticeably slower. I didn't buy it
for speed. You're obviously correct . . . I'm seeing what want to see -
virtually grain free printing.

As for printer reviews, I've seen a lot of malarkey printed in my time.
I take them all with a grain of dots ;-). There's only one reviewer I
like, and he hasn't reviewed it yet. And not that I could care anymore,
I married this printer and we're going to get along just fine. So far
the Honeymoon's been a happy one.

-Taliesyn
 
As for printer reviews, I've seen a lot of malarkey printed in my time.
I take them all with a grain of dots ;-). There's only one reviewer I
like, and he hasn't reviewed it yet.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps Canon hasn't sent him a press kit to paraphrase yet.
 
All of the publications who do reviews (PCWorld, PC Mag, Cnet etc)
concurr that while the IP5000 is substantially better for business
documents it is marginally inferior on photos and somewhat slower.
Maybe you see what you want to see.
[/QUOTE]
So far I regard Vincent Oliver's reviews on Photo-i as being the most
rigorous. He posts hi res scans of the printer output to back his
conclusions.
 
Mikey said:
Really would like a FAST printer that also is great at photos.

Narrowed it down to either the R300 or IP5000 Any +- for either printer?


Thanks

Mikey
Click to expand...
I had the same "dilema" awhile back, I was leaning towards the IP5000
but then the R300 became available for C$80 less, which is what decided
it for me. The 2-sided printing was a feature that canon had that I
liked, but in retrospect I probably would not use it much in any case. I
like the cd/dvd printing option in the R300 but I have yet to try it. As
far as photo quality goes, I'm very happy with the R300's output, and
I'm quite fussy. The quality on the best setting is as close to lab
quality as I've seen on a printer. The 1 pico on the Canon impressed me,
but as other posters mentioned any review I read on it put the 4000 and
R300 ahead of it as far as print quality went.

I'm not sure what all this means in any case, I used to be meticulous
about such details, in my audiophile days I would purchase one piece of
equipment over another if it's total harmonic distortion was .001 better
than its competitor, when in reality the human ear (especially mine)
could not have told the difference anyway!
 
If you are using a digital camera all printers produce grain free photos
because there is only grain in film.
 
measekite said:
If you are using a digital camera all printers produce grain free photos
because there is only grain in film.

Taliesyn wrote:
Click to expand...

HUH? . . .

I don't know what you call "grain free". To me, ink dots are the
"grains". And all printers are not equal by any means. I just visited
Vincent Oliver's review site of printers and you see a varied difference
in "grain" between magnified print samples. Any half decent pair of eyes
can see the difference without magnification. I've changed printers
several times in the last five years and can attest to that.

-Taliesyn
 
Back
Top