S
steve
What printer gives the best results?
Thanks
Steve
Thanks
Steve
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Z
zakezuke
What printer gives the best results?
You should at least consider the ip6000, which is priced pretty low, or
the ip8500 which is priced higher. The ip6000 at least has the photo
cyan/magenta tanks where the ip4000 has just the five tanks. While the
ip4000 is a passable photoprinter, the other two models are primarly
photo printers.
This is a tough call... simply because i've used the ip3000, mp760, and
r200 for CD printing.
While i'm not a fan of the r200 model.. I've had many odd issues with
mine.... I gotta say I prefered it over the mp760 (ip4000 all in one
unit) in terms of quality. It's odd because the drop size is larger
yet even with larger drops the r200 manages to do white text on a
colored background at ultra small fonts. And the print looks good on
most mediums from fuji to TDK. Photos are top notch, very high level
of color accuracy.
I switched to the ip3000... in many regards a lesser printer than the
even the ip4000 and definatly the r200. But franky I feel it's a beter
product. It can be serviced if need be, you can replace the diaper if
needed, you can replace the head if needed, and based on my limited
experence of a couple months no... i've NO real issues with the printer
leaking, splashing ink everywhere, and generally being a piece of crap.
But the price of the r200 is equal to the OEM ink when on sale, and the
warranty is a year. If you consider an r200 consider opening the back
door and taking the tube and dumping your ink manualy, otherwise the
diaper isn't designed to be replaced by the end user. The price is low
enough the printer is totally disposable... so if it breaks after a
year no great loss.
The ip4000 is a better general purpose printer with a strongpoint in
text printing. Based on my observation it wastes less ink than the
r200. While I don't feel it's as good a photo printer, copies are a
tad punchy for my taste, extreme warm tones for cool colors, extreme
cool tones for warm colors. But even with this minor flaw... it's
clearly a better built unit. Fuji discs require a higher intensity to
look decent than for example TDK.
You should at least consider the ip6000, which is priced pretty low, or
the ip8500 which is priced higher. The ip6000 at least has the photo
cyan/magenta tanks where the ip4000 has just the five tanks. While the
ip4000 is a passable photoprinter, the other two models are primarly
photo printers.
This is a tough call... simply because i've used the ip3000, mp760, and
r200 for CD printing.
While i'm not a fan of the r200 model.. I've had many odd issues with
mine.... I gotta say I prefered it over the mp760 (ip4000 all in one
unit) in terms of quality. It's odd because the drop size is larger
yet even with larger drops the r200 manages to do white text on a
colored background at ultra small fonts. And the print looks good on
most mediums from fuji to TDK. Photos are top notch, very high level
of color accuracy.
I switched to the ip3000... in many regards a lesser printer than the
even the ip4000 and definatly the r200. But franky I feel it's a beter
product. It can be serviced if need be, you can replace the diaper if
needed, you can replace the head if needed, and based on my limited
experence of a couple months no... i've NO real issues with the printer
leaking, splashing ink everywhere, and generally being a piece of crap.
But the price of the r200 is equal to the OEM ink when on sale, and the
warranty is a year. If you consider an r200 consider opening the back
door and taking the tube and dumping your ink manualy, otherwise the
diaper isn't designed to be replaced by the end user. The price is low
enough the printer is totally disposable... so if it breaks after a
year no great loss.
The ip4000 is a better general purpose printer with a strongpoint in
text printing. Based on my observation it wastes less ink than the
r200. While I don't feel it's as good a photo printer, copies are a
tad punchy for my taste, extreme warm tones for cool colors, extreme
cool tones for warm colors. But even with this minor flaw... it's
clearly a better built unit. Fuji discs require a higher intensity to
look decent than for example TDK.
M
measekite
zakezuke said:You should at least consider the ip6000, which is priced pretty low, or
the ip8500 which is priced higher. The ip6000 at least has the photo
cyan/magenta tanks where the ip4000 has just the five tanks. While the
ip4000 is a passable photoprinter, the other two models are primarly
photo printers.
IP4000 OUT PERFORMS IP6000. MARGINALLY BETTER ON PHOTOS AND BETTER
TEXT. FASTER TOO. IP6000 HAS LOW DYE INK THAT MAY HAVE A TENDENCY TO
FADE MORE.
IP6000 IS DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT REALLY USE COMPUTERS TO EDIT
PHOTOS.
This is a tough call... simply because i've used the ip3000, mp760, and
r200 for CD printing.
While i'm not a fan of the r200 model.. I've had many odd issues with
mine.... I gotta say I prefered it over the mp760 (ip4000 all in one
unit) in terms of quality. It's odd because the drop size is larger
yet even with larger drops the r200 manages to do white text on a
colored background at ultra small fonts. And the print looks good on
most mediums from fuji to TDK. Photos are top notch, very high level
of color accuracy.
MORE BULLSHIT. MY FRIEND WHO HAS AN R300 BECAUSE HE WANTS TO PRINT ON
CD'S (USA) PRINTED THE SAME PHOTOS ON THE CANON IP4000 AND HIS R300.
BOTH AGREE THAT THE RESULTS OF THE CANON ARE BETTER.
*
AND OF COURSE WE BOTH USE OEM INK.
*
Z
zakezuke
IP6000 HAS LOW DYE INK THAT MAY HAVE A TENDENCY TO FADE MORE.
So print longavity your saying one is better off considering an Epson?
I couldn't agree with you more.
I'll freely admit the ip6000 isn't canon's best offering. But it's the
only one that does both CD printing and has light cyan and magenta
inks.
Well then your friend should call parts now and buy a tray and pickup a
Canon. The trays are under $10.00 but there is a waiting list.
Otherwise get one on ebay. They are usually about $20. There is no
excuse not to have one.
But I strongly suspect you have no experence CD printing on the canon.
Keep in mind that I own both and have used them side by side. And yes
even with OEM ink. The canon does a fine job so long as you keep these
facts in mind.
1. The print apears light on some discs. Most notable is Fuji. This
can be resolved by increasing the intensity to +12 to +15. Not really
an issue on the Epson
2. The medium affects the color more so than Epson. The Canon OEM ink
apears to be watered down... I imagine this is because it's a thermal
bubble jet using silicon-oxide wafers which melt at relativly low
tempratures. Epson uses micro piezo and doesn't require a state change
in the medium for it to go out the wholes. Canon requires bubbling,
hince the name bubble jet.
3. The surface tention on the drops from the canon have a lower
viscosity, they splat and bleed more. You can easily see this when you
print a black background and white text. While standard non-color
text on the ip4000 looks sharper... the same can not be said about
color text.
What I find sad is you are yelling at someone who would recomend a
canon over epson since you are totally obsessed with the Canons. I'm
the first to say it's a good printer. But even though I feel the r200
is a piece of crap... I have to admit in all honesty the output when it
works is just superb. It's price is so low that if you buy OEM ink
anyway the printer right now at office depot coasts as much as the OEM
ink. I have hit 300 CDs on my ip3000 and it's still going strong.
But I imagine you'll scream bullshit once more, that's perfectly fine.
You and your friend can love the output from the ip4000 all you want.
It's a fine general purpose printer and a very passable photo printer.
So print longavity your saying one is better off considering an Epson?
I couldn't agree with you more.
I'll freely admit the ip6000 isn't canon's best offering. But it's the
only one that does both CD printing and has light cyan and magenta
inks.
MY FRIEND WHO HAS AN R300 BECAUSE HE WANTS TO PRINT ON
CD'S (USA) PRINTED THE SAME PHOTOS ON THE CANON IP4000 AND HIS
R300. BOTH AGREE THAT THE RESULTS OF THE CANON ARE BETTER.
Well then your friend should call parts now and buy a tray and pickup a
Canon. The trays are under $10.00 but there is a waiting list.
Otherwise get one on ebay. They are usually about $20. There is no
excuse not to have one.
But I strongly suspect you have no experence CD printing on the canon.
Keep in mind that I own both and have used them side by side. And yes
even with OEM ink. The canon does a fine job so long as you keep these
facts in mind.
1. The print apears light on some discs. Most notable is Fuji. This
can be resolved by increasing the intensity to +12 to +15. Not really
an issue on the Epson
2. The medium affects the color more so than Epson. The Canon OEM ink
apears to be watered down... I imagine this is because it's a thermal
bubble jet using silicon-oxide wafers which melt at relativly low
tempratures. Epson uses micro piezo and doesn't require a state change
in the medium for it to go out the wholes. Canon requires bubbling,
hince the name bubble jet.
3. The surface tention on the drops from the canon have a lower
viscosity, they splat and bleed more. You can easily see this when you
print a black background and white text. While standard non-color
text on the ip4000 looks sharper... the same can not be said about
color text.
What I find sad is you are yelling at someone who would recomend a
canon over epson since you are totally obsessed with the Canons. I'm
the first to say it's a good printer. But even though I feel the r200
is a piece of crap... I have to admit in all honesty the output when it
works is just superb. It's price is so low that if you buy OEM ink
anyway the printer right now at office depot coasts as much as the OEM
ink. I have hit 300 CDs on my ip3000 and it's still going strong.
But I imagine you'll scream bullshit once more, that's perfectly fine.
You and your friend can love the output from the ip4000 all you want.
It's a fine general purpose printer and a very passable photo printer.
L
lala
steve said:What printer gives the best results?
Thanks
Steve
The answer to your question is the ip4000.
Regards
S
SleeperMan
zakezuke said:So print longavity your saying one is better off considering an Epson?
I couldn't agree with you more.
in that case you don't have a clue...since R200 also uses dye inks. In fact,
most of Epson's do.
Only R800, which is veeeeeeery expensive uses pigmented ink.
Don't compare apples and oranges...
BTW...ip4000 is better than ip6000. That photo inks.... are just waste of
money.
S
steve
in that case you don't have a clue...since R200 also uses dye inks. In fact,
most of Epson's do.
Only R800, which is veeeeeeery expensive uses pigmented ink.
Don't compare apples and oranges...
BTW...ip4000 is better than ip6000. That photo inks.... are just waste of
money.
Just ordered an IP4000 i already have the epson R200.So i will be able
to compare(hoping the IP40000 is better!)
M
measekite
ABSOLUTELY NOT - IP4000 IS FINEzakezuke said:So print longavity your saying one is better off considering an Epson?
SO WHAT. NO CD PRINTING IN USAI couldn't agree with you more.
I'll freely admit the ip6000 isn't canon's best offering. But it's the
only one that does both CD printing and has light cyan and magenta
inks.
Well then your friend should call parts now and buy a tray and pickup a
Canon. The trays are under $10.00 but there is a waiting list.
Otherwise get one on ebay. They are usually about $20. There is no
excuse not to have one.
YES THERE IS. NO SOFTWARE AND NO INSTRUCTIONS AND NOT APPROVED BY CANON
CAN BE RESOLVED BY NOT USING FUJIBut I strongly suspect you have no experence CD printing on the canon.
Keep in mind that I own both and have used them side by side. And yes
even with OEM ink. The canon does a fine job so long as you keep these
facts in mind.
1. The print apears light on some discs. Most notable is Fuji. This
can be resolved by increasing the intensity to +12 to +15. Not really
an issue on the Epson
2. The medium affects the color more so than Epson. The Canon OEM ink
apears to be watered down... I imagine this is because it's a thermal
bubble jet using silicon-oxide wafers which melt at relativly low
tempratures. Epson uses micro piezo and doesn't require a state change
in the medium for it to go out the wholes. Canon requires bubbling,
hince the name bubble jet.
EPSON HAS THE NAME OF CLOGJET
3. The surface tention on the drops from the canon have a lower
viscosity, they splat and bleed more. You can easily see this when you
print a black background and white text. While standard non-color
text on the ip4000 looks sharper... the same can not be said about
color text.
What I find sad is you are yelling at someone who would recomend a
canon over epson since you are totally obsessed with the Canons. I'm
the first to say it's a good printer. But even though I feel the r200
is a piece of crap... I have to admit in all honesty the output when it
works is just superb. It's price is so low that if you buy OEM ink
anyway the printer right now at office depot coasts as much as the OEM
ink. I have hit 300 CDs on my ip3000 and it's still going strong.
I KNOW YOU CAN BUY THE R200 FOR $50.00
M
measekite
With out a doubt. And that is using OEM ink on both.
M
measekite
MAKE SURE YOU COMPARE BOTH USING OEM INK. YOU WILL FIND THE IP4000 HAS
MORE PIZAAZ AND RICHER COLOR.
MORE PIZAAZ AND RICHER COLOR.
Z
zakezuke
SO WHAT. NO CD PRINTING IN USA
I'm in the usa. bought a tray and i'm printing just fine.
Three points:
1. There is plenty of software. You can download canon's cd-label
print, you can download surething. There are other options too that
support the pxima series but I've not used those like discus.
2. The instructions are approved by canon, the instructinos are
available in the canon ip4000 service manual. The tray is available
from partsnow or ebay.
3. If for some reason you are the sort of person who feels like they
are cheating canon by enabling the CD print feature... order a printer
from europe. http://www.expansys.com/advsearch.asp?srch=all They are
spiffy and even give you a a UK to US plug adapter, but I'd reccomend
using your own plug because it's less bulky. Available at any
electornics store or if you are feeling lazy order QH2-2725-000 from
canon. But if you are lazy and can spend the extra cash to ship a
ip4000 from europe... more power too you.
If you want CD-printing on the pixma printers in America... there is no
excuse not to get it.
So what you are saying is you should buy a printer that won't print on
a popular medium type, a good high quality medium type?
Given the fact you have never printed on CDs on the ip4000, this is not
a subject you can speak about with any sort of experence. While Fujis
require an intensity of +15 or so, TDK only require an intensity of +10
or so. You can be lazy an always print CDs set to "dark" and +12
intensity just to be safe.
What's really sad is you are trying to argue someone with direct
experence with the product, both products. A drawback to the ip4000
for printing discs is the fact that you need to at the very least
adjust your intensity for different media types.
So what you are saying is that the printer you describe as the clog jet
is so cheap you can just buy new ones? That's smart advice.
I'm in the usa. bought a tray and i'm printing just fine.
YES THERE IS. NO SOFTWARE AND NO INSTRUCTIONS AND NOT APPROVED
Three points:
1. There is plenty of software. You can download canon's cd-label
print, you can download surething. There are other options too that
support the pxima series but I've not used those like discus.
2. The instructions are approved by canon, the instructinos are
available in the canon ip4000 service manual. The tray is available
from partsnow or ebay.
3. If for some reason you are the sort of person who feels like they
are cheating canon by enabling the CD print feature... order a printer
from europe. http://www.expansys.com/advsearch.asp?srch=all They are
spiffy and even give you a a UK to US plug adapter, but I'd reccomend
using your own plug because it's less bulky. Available at any
electornics store or if you are feeling lazy order QH2-2725-000 from
canon. But if you are lazy and can spend the extra cash to ship a
ip4000 from europe... more power too you.
If you want CD-printing on the pixma printers in America... there is no
excuse not to get it.
BY CANON CAN BE RESOLVED BY NOT USING FUJI
So what you are saying is you should buy a printer that won't print on
a popular medium type, a good high quality medium type?
Given the fact you have never printed on CDs on the ip4000, this is not
a subject you can speak about with any sort of experence. While Fujis
require an intensity of +15 or so, TDK only require an intensity of +10
or so. You can be lazy an always print CDs set to "dark" and +12
intensity just to be safe.
What's really sad is you are trying to argue someone with direct
experence with the product, both products. A drawback to the ip4000
for printing discs is the fact that you need to at the very least
adjust your intensity for different media types.
I KNOW YOU CAN BUY THE R200 FOR $50.00
So what you are saying is that the printer you describe as the clog jet
is so cheap you can just buy new ones? That's smart advice.
Z
zakezuke
in that case you don't have a clue...since R200 also uses dye inks. In fact,
Funny thing is I never said the r200 used pigment ink. But just
because two printers use dye doesn't mean they are using dye of equal
quality.
Try this expiment. Print on a non printable with both the r200 and the
ip4000. Observe how the dye ink for the r200 beads up where the ip4000
ink runs.
Anyhow all i'm saying is the r200 ink is a tad more lightfast than the
ip4000 ink. I noticed this really fast with my cd covers either on
kirkland or epson photo paper. The Canon ink faided in weeks where the
epson ink I didn't notice it faiding at all. On the photo paper
plus... a piece I set on the windowsill... the faiding isn't so bad...
since jun30 it still resembles the image I printed.
Also as some can agree the light inks for the canon fade very quickly.
Assuming the pigments are the same and the formula is the same and
assuming the light inks are just watered down editions of the pigmented
inks... one who claims that the light inks faid too fast must also
admit that the other inks are equaly prone to faiding just because
there is more dye they don't fade to nothing as quickly.
As for the ip6000 being a waste of money... could be. I like the i960
but it's not offered with CD printing.
most of Epson's do.
Only R800, which is veeeeeeery expensive uses pigmented ink.
Don't compare apples and oranges...
BTW...ip4000 is better than ip6000. That photo inks.... are just waste of
money.
Funny thing is I never said the r200 used pigment ink. But just
because two printers use dye doesn't mean they are using dye of equal
quality.
Try this expiment. Print on a non printable with both the r200 and the
ip4000. Observe how the dye ink for the r200 beads up where the ip4000
ink runs.
Anyhow all i'm saying is the r200 ink is a tad more lightfast than the
ip4000 ink. I noticed this really fast with my cd covers either on
kirkland or epson photo paper. The Canon ink faided in weeks where the
epson ink I didn't notice it faiding at all. On the photo paper
plus... a piece I set on the windowsill... the faiding isn't so bad...
since jun30 it still resembles the image I printed.
Also as some can agree the light inks for the canon fade very quickly.
Assuming the pigments are the same and the formula is the same and
assuming the light inks are just watered down editions of the pigmented
inks... one who claims that the light inks faid too fast must also
admit that the other inks are equaly prone to faiding just because
there is more dye they don't fade to nothing as quickly.
As for the ip6000 being a waste of money... could be. I like the i960
but it's not offered with CD printing.
S
steve
Will do already ordered some OEM ink for the Canon and i always useMAKE SURE YOU COMPARE BOTH USING OEM INK. YOU WILL FIND THE IP4000 HAS
MORE PIZAAZ AND RICHER COLOR.
OEM ink for the epson
A
Arthur Entlich
Actually, the C80, C66, C82, C84, C86, CX5200, CX 5400, CX 6400 and
others all use pigment colorant inks. The C66 costs well under $100.
Further, even the Epson dye ink printers of today have better fade
resistant inks than the Canon products, especially those with low dye
load inks.
Art
others all use pigment colorant inks. The C66 costs well under $100.
Further, even the Epson dye ink printers of today have better fade
resistant inks than the Canon products, especially those with low dye
load inks.
Art
S
SleeperMan
zakezuke said:Funny thing is I never said the r200 used pigment ink. But just
because two printers use dye doesn't mean they are using dye of equal
quality.
You said that canon has low dye ink which fades more...so, what have Epson?
Pigmented one?
Try this expiment. Print on a non printable with both the r200 and
the ip4000. Observe how the dye ink for the r200 beads up where the
ip4000 ink runs.
Anyhow all i'm saying is the r200 ink is a tad more lightfast than the
ip4000 ink. I noticed this really fast with my cd covers either on
kirkland or epson photo paper. The Canon ink faided in weeks where
the epson ink I didn't notice it faiding at all. On the photo paper
plus... a piece I set on the windowsill... the faiding isn't so bad...
since jun30 it still resembles the image I printed.
Also as some can agree the light inks for the canon fade very quickly.
Assuming the pigments are the same and the formula is the same and
assuming the light inks are just watered down editions of the
pigmented inks... one who claims that the light inks faid too fast
must also admit that the other inks are equaly prone to faiding just
because there is more dye they don't fade to nothing as quickly.
As for the ip6000 being a waste of money... could be. I like the i960
but it's not offered with CD printing.
I mean it this way:
sure, ip6000 does print better photos. But, since only photo paper costs
triple of lab made photo, and you must yet to count ink used for printing,
then fading, you come to conclusion that printed photo comes out at elast 4
times more expensive than if you send it to a photo lab.
THAT's why it's a waste of money. It is super printer, it's just it's not
worthed to print photos, unless a few pieces every now and then and for this
ip4000 is quite excellent.This is again the reason that FADING is a very
last concern of mine. If i want to have lasting photos, no printer will make
them, so i'll send a CD to a lab and they will make some. When i print a
photo, it's just either for fun, or just for the time being, not for storage
purposes. Note also that pigmented ink (used in R800) does not shine -
tested with a guy who does have this printer and prints maybe look better (i
mean colors), but when you look to a photo, that great gloss of ip4000 can't
be beat by any R800 printed photo. Even gloss optimizer doesn't help any
much.
I
ian lincoln
What do you guys think of the 5000? Does the smaller droplet size and higher
res make the difference? I currently have a i850 with black nozzles finally
clogging.
res make the difference? I currently have a i850 with black nozzles finally
clogging.
Z
zakezuke
You said that canon has low dye ink which fades more...so, what have Epson?
I screwed that post one up. Not sure what I was thinking... other
than I was thinking pigment in the generic sense of stuff that adds
color. It's a long argument I've had with this guy. He claims he
never noticed canon inks fading quickly... yet at the same time will
point out the light inks in the ip6000 fade more quickly than the
others. As you pointed out in another post, at least in the case of
the lexmark the light ink is just the regular ink with more solvent.
I'm sure it is just as likely that the light inks for the epson will
fade more quickly... but not in a couple of weeks. I'm not talking
mild faiding here i'm talking hard washed out faces and sky turning to
white type fading.
It's my claim that canon bci-6 ink fade more quickly than just about
anything else on the market, it just so happens that the first you see
are the light inks, so anyone who would notice the light inks fading
should think to them selves perhaps the full load inks do as well. I'm
sure the epsons will as well, but not in the two months I kept test
prints in the window in my car.
What I really want is the i960 head in the ip6000. While the head size
looks about the same... the i960 has about twice the nozzles so more
print per stroke.
I'll agree gernerally speaking home photoprinting is usually more
expenstive than shop printing. There are places and sizes where this
is not true, but generally speaking home printing using the OEM inks
cost an arm and a leg. But we are talking CD printing here, not photo
printing. I can't for example take my disc down to walmart and have
them print on it. In fact I don't know anywhere where I could do that
in batches of 1 for a reasonable price. Even covers... walmart and
costco won't do 5x5 covers nor 8x10.6 covers (or whatever dvd cover
size is). They will do 8x10 which would cover a jewel case very well,
but not a long box.
I don't own the r800 personaly. Costs too dang much for what I need,
which is basicly a means to organize my video and cd collection.
Pigmented one?
I screwed that post one up. Not sure what I was thinking... other
than I was thinking pigment in the generic sense of stuff that adds
color. It's a long argument I've had with this guy. He claims he
never noticed canon inks fading quickly... yet at the same time will
point out the light inks in the ip6000 fade more quickly than the
others. As you pointed out in another post, at least in the case of
the lexmark the light ink is just the regular ink with more solvent.
I'm sure it is just as likely that the light inks for the epson will
fade more quickly... but not in a couple of weeks. I'm not talking
mild faiding here i'm talking hard washed out faces and sky turning to
white type fading.
It's my claim that canon bci-6 ink fade more quickly than just about
anything else on the market, it just so happens that the first you see
are the light inks, so anyone who would notice the light inks fading
should think to them selves perhaps the full load inks do as well. I'm
sure the epsons will as well, but not in the two months I kept test
prints in the window in my car.
I mean it this way:
sure, ip6000 does print better photos. But, since only photo paper costs
triple of lab made photo, and you must yet to count ink used for printing,
then fading, you come to conclusion that printed photo comes out at elast 4
times more expensive than if you send it to a photo lab.
What I really want is the i960 head in the ip6000. While the head size
looks about the same... the i960 has about twice the nozzles so more
print per stroke.
I'll agree gernerally speaking home photoprinting is usually more
expenstive than shop printing. There are places and sizes where this
is not true, but generally speaking home printing using the OEM inks
cost an arm and a leg. But we are talking CD printing here, not photo
printing. I can't for example take my disc down to walmart and have
them print on it. In fact I don't know anywhere where I could do that
in batches of 1 for a reasonable price. Even covers... walmart and
costco won't do 5x5 covers nor 8x10.6 covers (or whatever dvd cover
size is). They will do 8x10 which would cover a jewel case very well,
but not a long box.
I don't own the r800 personaly. Costs too dang much for what I need,
which is basicly a means to organize my video and cd collection.
Z
zakezuke
What do you guys think of the 5000? Does the smaller droplet size and higher
More spendy then the ip6000 or even the ip4200... hard to say. Some
claim that the ip4000 looks better. The problem is canon uses
dedicated nozzles where the ip4000 has 2pl and 5pl, the ip5000 has 1pl
to 5pl. It took canon a while to release another 1pl printer, the
ip4200. I'd seriously consider one as the few prints i've seen from it
look less punchy than even the ip4000.
res make the difference? I currently have a i850 with black nozzles finally
clogging.
More spendy then the ip6000 or even the ip4200... hard to say. Some
claim that the ip4000 looks better. The problem is canon uses
dedicated nozzles where the ip4000 has 2pl and 5pl, the ip5000 has 1pl
to 5pl. It took canon a while to release another 1pl printer, the
ip4200. I'd seriously consider one as the few prints i've seen from it
look less punchy than even the ip4000.
S
SleeperMan
zakezuke said:I screwed that post one up. Not sure what I was thinking... other
than I was thinking pigment in the generic sense of stuff that adds
color. It's a long argument I've had with this guy. He claims he
never noticed canon inks fading quickly... yet at the same time will
point out the light inks in the ip6000 fade more quickly than the
others. As you pointed out in another post, at least in the case of
the lexmark the light ink is just the regular ink with more solvent.
I'm sure it is just as likely that the light inks for the epson will
fade more quickly... but not in a couple of weeks. I'm not talking
mild faiding here i'm talking hard washed out faces and sky turning to
white type fading.
It's my claim that canon bci-6 ink fade more quickly than just about
anything else on the market, it just so happens that the first you see
are the light inks, so anyone who would notice the light inks fading
should think to them selves perhaps the full load inks do as well.
I'm sure the epsons will as well, but not in the two months I kept
test prints in the window in my car.
What I really want is the i960 head in the ip6000. While the head
size looks about the same... the i960 has about twice the nozzles so
more print per stroke.
I'll agree gernerally speaking home photoprinting is usually more
expenstive than shop printing. There are places and sizes where this
is not true, but generally speaking home printing using the OEM inks
cost an arm and a leg. But we are talking CD printing here, not photo
printing. I can't for example take my disc down to walmart and have
them print on it. In fact I don't know anywhere where I could do that
in batches of 1 for a reasonable price. Even covers... walmart and
costco won't do 5x5 covers nor 8x10.6 covers (or whatever dvd cover
size is). They will do 8x10 which would cover a jewel case very well,
but not a long box.
I don't own the r800 personaly. Costs too dang much for what I need,
which is basicly a means to organize my video and cd collection.
i'm glad we come to agree. I never had any photo in direct sun, so i can't
say, but i do have a number of them in the room on the wall (not direct
sunlight) for a while now - some of them are still from my late i550 and
they are not visible faded, so i'm quite happy.
True, we are suppose to talk about CDR printing. I guess this fades out,
too...But, you should note that you generally keep CDR's in a dark place, so
this must help a bit...
There were times i used to think that color laser would do the trick, but
then i found out that they are not near as good as inkjets...damn...
S
SleeperMan
zakezuke said:More spendy then the ip6000 or even the ip4200... hard to say. Some
claim that the ip4000 looks better. The problem is canon uses
dedicated nozzles where the ip4000 has 2pl and 5pl, the ip5000 has 1pl
to 5pl. It took canon a while to release another 1pl printer, the
ip4200. I'd seriously consider one as the few prints i've seen from
it look less punchy than even the ip4000.
1pl...only canon and noone else so far...it makes me wonder, is it canon so
wise or are all others so bloddy stupid?
.... will be any head clog problems...so bloddy small drop...ouch!