Canon i960 vs. IP4000?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Trevor Holyoak
  • Start date Start date
T

Trevor Holyoak

I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
a better job?

Thanks,
Trevor
 
I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
a better job?

Thanks,
Trevor
[/QUOTE]
Unless you do a lot of text or want Pixma paper handling, the i960 would
be better. The previous model to the iP4000 was the i860.
 
Trevor said:
I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
a better job?
Click to expand...

For photos, the i960 is better, but it's not a dramatic difference.

The i960 is a six colour printer with the light photo inks, while the
iP4000 is only a four colour printer. Both use droplet size as small as
2 picoliters.
 
If you don't mind rebates, looks like tigerdirect.com still has the i960
for $89.99 after $70 in rebates.
 
Bill said:
For photos, the i960 is better, but it's not a dramatic difference.

The i960 is a six colour printer with the light photo inks, while the
iP4000 is only a four colour printer. Both use droplet size as small as
2 picoliters.
Click to expand...

The iP4000 is a 5 tank system. And yes I realize two of these tanks are
black, however because one is the Photo Black it does offer improved output
of the true 4 color/tank models in some photos.
 
PC said:
The iP4000 is a 5 tank system.
Click to expand...

I never said otherwise.
And it's still only a four colour printer.
And yes I realize two of these tanks are
black, however because one is the Photo Black it does offer improved output
of the true 4 color/tank models in some photos.
Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't make much difference. Do side-by-side comparisons
and you'll be hard pressed to find a difference. Only in black and white
or photos with a lot of gray gradients could I find a difference. And if
that was a major concern, I would buy a printer that is better suited to
B&W prints.

No, I think the only reason the photo black is there is to draw
customers who don't want to pay for the extra ink of a six colour
system. It's just another example of marketing hype.
 
Bill said:
I never said otherwise.
And it's still only a four colour printer.
Click to expand...

Well you see there Bill...there you go again trying to argue a point when
someone points out an inaccuracy in one of your posts. The Canon iP4000 is a
5 Tank/5 Color printer. So you are still incorrect. A quote if this helps
you to swallow the facts a little easier "the Canon PIXMAT iP4000 Photo
Printer is ideal. Its ContrastPLUS 5-color ink system with four dye-based
inks plus a pigment-based black ink...." Now whether you choose to accept
or not, it is considered 5 color even though 2 are varying shades of black.
I even made it a point to mention I was aware of the 2 black tanks as I
suspected you would shoot back a 'no it's not' response.
Actually it doesn't make much difference. Do side-by-side comparisons
and you'll be hard pressed to find a difference. Only in black and white
or photos with a lot of gray gradients could I find a difference. And if
that was a major concern, I would buy a printer that is better suited to
B&W prints.
Click to expand...

Actually, you can. Do much astronomical or nightscape phototography?
Evidentally not. If you did you would notice that the photo-black tends to
blend better in images with large areas of darkness or low contrast compared
to the pigmented black used for the crisp text printouts.
No, I think the only reason the photo black is there is to draw
customers who don't want to pay for the extra ink of a six colour
system. It's just another example of marketing hype.
Click to expand...

And this is just another example of how little you seem to know about how
printers work.
While it may not be a major factor in every photo (something I noted in my
original response) a photo black tank can certainly improve image quality on
certain types of images.
 
PC said:
Well you see there Bill...there you go again trying to argue a point when
someone points out an inaccuracy in one of your posts. The Canon iP4000 is a
5 Tank/5 Color printer.
Click to expand...

Canon calls it a five colour printer, but since it only uses four
colours at a time, that makes it a four colour printer, regardless of
what Canon's marketing department wants you to believe.
 
Bill said:
Canon calls it a five colour printer, but since it only uses four
colours at a time, that makes it a four colour printer, regardless of
what Canon's marketing department wants you to believe.
Click to expand...

It actually can (and DOES) use all 5 colors at the same time when needed.
This is all dependent on the particular print job being processed by the
printer driver. So it has nothing to do with what marketing wants anyone to
believe, but instead how the printer and driver actually work.
 
PC said:
It actually can (and DOES) use all 5 colors at the same time when needed.
This is all dependent on the particular print job being processed by the
printer driver. So it has nothing to do with what marketing wants anyone to
believe, but instead how the printer and driver actually work.
Click to expand...

Really...?

Got a link to those facts?
 
It actually can (and DOES) use all 5 colors at the same time when needed.
This is all dependent on the particular print job being processed by the
printer driver. So it has nothing to do with what marketing wants anyone to
believe, but instead how the printer and driver actually work.
[/QUOTE]
AFAIK the pigment text black isn't used on photo papers. Do you know
that the photoblack IS used in plain paper graphics or are graphics
blacks composite CMY except on photo papers?
 
Trevor said:
I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
a better job?
Click to expand...

Trevor,

I own the large S9000 and to my regret I must conclude that this
was a mistake to take Canon at that point of time: We observe
drastic fading of the images, even in a moderate light condition
and on the expensive glossy paper. There is a reason that Canon
does not pop up on Wilhelms web pages:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

We have posted an examples of such a faded image. The magnetic
image frame/holder was covering a part of the image and this
provided us with an excellent durability experiment!

See for yourself:
http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading

Tohmas
 
ThomasH said:
Trevor,

I own the large S9000 and to my regret I must conclude that this
was a mistake to take Canon at that point of time: We observe
drastic fading of the images, even in a moderate light condition
and on the expensive glossy paper. There is a reason that Canon
does not pop up on Wilhelms web pages:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

We have posted an examples of such a faded image. The magnetic
image frame/holder was covering a part of the image and this
provided us with an excellent durability experiment!

See for yourself:
http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading
Click to expand...

Was the picture covered with glass?
 
BenOne© said:
Was the picture covered with glass?
Click to expand...

No, the image was exposed to air and light. This is a magnetic
"frame", commonly used to pin the image to something like a
fridge. Neither were all other images, of which some printed
on the Matte paper at the same time still look almost unchanged!

Thomas
 
ThomasH wrote:

No, the image was exposed to air and light. This is a magnetic
"frame", commonly used to pin the image to something like a
fridge. Neither were all other images, of which some printed
on the Matte paper at the same time still look almost unchanged!

Thomas
Click to expand...

I wouldn'y expect much more than 6 months before an image started to fade if it
wasn't behind glass.

What did you use to print the ones that didn't fade?
 
BenOne© said:
Was the picture covered with glass?
Click to expand...

This would definitely make a difference, though I have never had much issue
with fading for any of my pics (framed or not).
The ones that I guess I could say experienced 'some' fade (though VERY
slight) are of my grand-daughter and are on plain paper stuck to the front
of my fridge with a magnet. I assume the direct sunlight in the latter half
of the day and the ozone levels from the fridge compressor may have
something to do with this.
 
Everyone has different experiences with ink fading. In the example you
clearly stated that the fading is less with other types of papers so that
ought to give you a clue that it's not always a problem with the printer or
the ink, but with a particular paper. I've got prints done on Canon printers
dating back to early 2000 (done on a BJC-3000) which have been displayed
since the day they were printed and no fading. Prints done on my s820, i950
and iP4000 also exhibit no fading. I use a variety of papers, but not Canon
due to the expense which may explain the lack of fading. FWIW most printed
items, regardless of how they were printed - inkjet, offset, chemical photo
process - will fade when exposed to adverse conditions. I have offset
printed posters in my store windows and shelf labels which exhibit serious
fading because of direct exposure to sunlight, but I also have some inkjet
prints kept on the dashboard of my car to see how badly they will fade.
They've been there for over a month without any detectable fading. Same goes
for prints taped to a wall in my office (over a year) where the lights stay
on 24/7 - no fading.
 
PC said:
BenOne© said:
ThomasH wrote: [...]
Trevor, I own the large S9000 and to my regret I must conclude that this
was a mistake to take Canon at that point of time: We observe drastic
fading of the images, even in a moderate light condition
and on the expensive glossy paper. There is a reason that Canon
does not pop up on Wilhelms web pages:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

We have posted an examples of such a faded image. The magnetic
image frame/holder was covering a part of the image and this provided us
with an excellent durability experiment!

See for yourself:
http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading
Click to expand...

Was the picture covered with glass?
Click to expand...

This would definitely make a difference, though I have never had much issue
with fading for any of my pics (framed or not).
The ones that I guess I could say experienced 'some' fade (though VERY
slight) are of my grand-daughter and are on plain paper stuck to the front
of my fridge with a magnet. I assume the direct sunlight in the latter half
of the day and the ozone levels from the fridge compressor may have
something to do with this.
Click to expand...

I agree: Because light was here never the issue, this must have
been some other influence. Here is California we have low humidity
and in our Air Conditioning we do use finest filters money can buy.
Thus we can rule out light, moisture and dust. What remains as
usual suspects are other factors, such as ozone or some cooking
steam. But in gods name, why than images printed on the matte paper
and hanging on the very same spot still look almost identical???

This particular Canon paper ("glossy photo paper plus") has
something peculiar in it: It smells intensely. First time we
printed approx. 20 images for 10 parties each, we noticed that
our home was smelling strangely, I suspected vinegar spilled in
the kitchen. Later we realized that this was this Canon paper!
Maybe this chemical is the culprit? Maybe it reacts with some
of the cooking ingrediens??

During our visit at the Keeble & Shuchat we saw that Canon people
had an ink printer with the same paper on display (they were
printing demo images.) I verified that this paper has its
familiar "vinegar like" smell. This was thus not just our batch!

Thomas
 
Cyan failure, and especially the light cyan, is a problem Epson's also
had with their dye inks.

I have noted Canon inks don't do well when exposed to UV or fluorescent
lighting without protection. However, you may wish to test other
papers. The dye/paper relationship can be significant. I have found
some papers that make dye inks much less fugitive than others.

You might want to try either some of Kodak's newer "Colorlast' papers or
Epson's Heavy weight matte, and see if either are more stable with the
Canon inks. There are some new papers being created in Europe that use
new technologies that should provide better dye ink permanence. They
are in testing now, and should be widely available in the next 6-12
months, I believe.

Art
 
Although I agree that fading is dependent upon many factors (paper type,
ink type, exposure to UV, exposure to certain gases (Ozone, etc), there
still are a few basic "truisms".

Overall, pigmented inks or pigments have better fade resistance than
dyes. There are physical reasons for this. Dyes are molecular in size,
and they get activated by photons, UV, and oxidizers which can literally
lift the molecules off the paper. The lower the dye load of the ink
(such as light cyan, light magenta, etc, the less protection the lower
molecules get from the ones above, because they are more dilute and
spread out. In general, swellable polymer technology in papers holds
dyes in place better than micropore paper surfaces.

So, for best fade resistance:

1) use a pigmented ink, if possible. Pigmented inks are made up of
literally "chunks" of solid color suspended in a media. The size alone
protects the color better, as does the opacity. Pigmented inks will
tend to cog inkjet heads more easily.

Color laser printers (and color photocopiers) also use pigments mixed
with clear plastics which they become imbedded in during the fusing
process. Most color laser prints are very fade resistance, much more so
than the ink used in offset printing.

2) When using dye inks, using full dye load colors (CMYK, for instance)
will usually hold up better than the light dye load colors (cm).

3) Using a swellable polymer paper will hold dyes in place better than
general fibre or micropore surfaces. Swellable polymer papers usually
get sticky when wet, take longer to dry, and tend to be damaged by water
more easily than micropore papers, which come out of the printer "dry".

4) Matte papers usually hold dyes better than glossy when comparing
similar paper types (see #3)

5) Protection from UV, direct sunlight and gasses will usually protect
any ink better

6) Allow inkjet prints, especially those with sealed of plastic or resin
coated paper substrates to air out for several days or longer before
framing to avoid continuing release of the glycols which take a while to
evaporate. These will leave a ghost-image which can become deposited on
the inside surface of the glass should you frame the print too soon.
Some people suggest placing the prints between clean newsprint to help
to pick up the glycols. Change the newsprint paper every day. You can
probably reuse the newsprint paper once it has fully evaporated off the
glycols.

Art
 
Back
Top