Canon IP6000D - Opinions Sought

[Tim]

To anyone with a Canon's IP6000D printer, how do you like it? With 4x6
photo paper loaded in the bottom tray does the paper stay aligned during
printing? I've heard rumors that it doesn't but I never that from an actual
owner. I'm considering buying this model or the newer IP6600D. TIA

 

[zakezuke]

To anyone with a Canon's IP6000D printer, how do you like it?

I don't own them.. but have links to decent reviews

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/canon_i960.html
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_ip6000d.html

I'd like to add look at the i960. You can typicaly only find it on
close out but it has more nozzles than the ip6000 but doesn't support
CD printing unless your in a country that sold the i965. the ip6600D
looks interesting but is to new to find any decent reviews.

 

[measekite]

This is not a good choice if you are going to use a computer to edit and
print. The IP4000 prints somewhat better photos, is faster, and
substantially better business documents.

The 6000 only benefits those who want to print from the camera without
using a computer.

 

[measekite]

GO READ REVIEWS AT www.pcmag.com and www.pcworld.com

 

[Joel Kolstad]

This is not a good choice if you are going to use a computer to edit and
print. The IP4000 prints somewhat better photos, is faster, and
substantially better business documents.

The 6000 only benefits those who want to print from the camera without using
a computer.

You're forgetting that the 6000D has automatic duplexing, which the 4000
doesn't. That alone justifies the extra $30 for me! I also would say that --
while you're probably correct that the 4000 produces better photos and is
faster, the average user would be VERY hard pressed to see the difference
(and if they could, they'd probably be looking at something fancier than a
$100 printer anyway?); the 6000D is both fast and produces very good photos,
just as the 4000 does.

 

[drc023]

The iP4000 doesn't have automatic duplexing???? Where did you get that bit
of information? My iP4000 and iP3000 certainly have that function.

 

[Matt Zukowski]

This is not a good choice if you are going to use a computer to edit and print.

You're forgetting that the 6000D has automatic duplexing, which the 4000
doesn't. That alone justifies the extra $30 for me! I also would say that --
while you're probably correct that the 4000 produces better photos and is
faster, the average user would be VERY hard pressed to see the difference
(and if they could, they'd probably be looking at something fancier than a
$100 printer anyway?); the 6000D is both fast and produces very good photos,
just as the 4000 does.

Ummm.. the ip4000 has duplexing, as does the ip3000, 5000, 6000D, 8500,
need I go on? The big edge on the ip6000d are the light inks. The big
drawback on the ip6000 is the lack of a dedicated text ink cartridge.
As the printhead nozzle set is smallish, it's not as fast as other
printers in the line which is rather why I bring up the i960... double
the nozzles at the same dpi, which while it doesn't have the dual paper
trays it does support duplex printing IIRC.

This whole "business documents" is some PC world rag sugestion that
boils down to doesn't print text as fast or as well. Valid enough
except anyone considering this printer would be doing so because it's a
photo printer, not a document printer. If you need CD printing, want
the dual trays, and heck even a spiffy 2.5 inch screen to print from
solid state media great... go ip6000 if not the new ip6600D. If you
don't need these extra features... the i960 is most spiffy. But if you
plan to print text documents to any degree it might be wiser to consider
the general purpose printers that are currently in canon's line up which
include the ip3000/ip4000/5000/4200/5200.

 

[Burt]

Ummm.. the ip4000 has duplexing, as does the ip3000, 5000, 6000D, 8500,
need I go on? The big edge on the ip6000d are the light inks. The big
drawback on the ip6000 is the lack of a dedicated text ink cartridge. As
the printhead nozzle set is smallish, it's not as fast as other printers
in the line which is rather why I bring up the i960... double the nozzles
at the same dpi, which while it doesn't have the dual paper trays it does
support duplex printing IIRC.

I use an i960 - really good photo printer. I use MIS inks and refill.
Excellent color match with OEM and no clogs in a year of use. No duplex
printing, but I use it only for photos and color graphics. I use an HP 5P
laser printer for "business" documents. The i960 has more nozzles and is
reputed to be a better printer than its "upgrade" model, the ip6000. I
think there are still a few new ones in the pipeline.

(snip)

 

[Matt Zukowski]

I use an i960 - really good photo printer. I use MIS inks and refill.
Excellent color match with OEM and no clogs in a year of use. No duplex
printing, but I use it only for photos and color graphics. I use an HP 5P
laser printer for "business" documents. The i960 has more nozzles and is
reputed to be a better printer than its "upgrade" model, the ip6000. I
think there are still a few new ones in the pipeline.

Ah... my mistake on the i960... duplex printing requires the DPU-10
Duplex Printing Unit (i860 Series i960 Series).

 

[measekite]

You're forgetting that the 6000D has automatic duplexing, which the 4000
doesn't.

YOU JUST GOTTA BE THE DUMMEST PIECE OF SHIT. I HAVE ONE AND ONE OF THE
BEST FEATURES IS AUTO DUPLEXING. YOU MUST BE AN INFERIOR KID OR A DUMB
OLD FART. GOTO THE CANON SITE AND READ THE SPECS.

That alone justifies the extra $30 for me!

NOT ONLY ARE YOU DUMB BUT REAL STUPID. FROM THE CANON SITE.

ContrastPLUS ink system for true-life photos and laser-quality text
Up to 25 ppm black/up to 17 ppm color
Dual paper path with *built-in 2 sided printing*
Maximum 4800 x 1200 color dpi with microscopic droplets as small as 2
picoliters
Direct photo printing from PictBridge compatible digital cameras & DV
camcorders
Borderless 4" x 6" photographs in approx. 36 seconds

I also would say that --
while you're probably correct that the 4000 produces better photos and is
faster, the average user would be VERY hard pressed to see the difference

BULLSHIT. AND THE TEXT DOCUMENTS ARE VASTLY SUPERIOR.

WWW.PCMAG.COM

(and if they could, they'd probably be looking at something fancier than a
$100 printer anyway?); the 6000D is both fast and produces very good photos,
just as the 4000 does.

PLEASE OR PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU WERE DROPPED ON YOUR HEAD AS A BABY. DO
YOU KNOW HOW TO READ. YOU ARE THE TYPE OF KNOW IT ALL KNOW NOTHING THAT
IS ALL OVER. ARE YOU A GOVERNMENT WORKER?

 

[measekite]

TELL THE SHMUCK

 

[measekite]

Ummm.. the ip4000 has duplexing, as does the ip3000, 5000, 6000D,
8500, need I go on? The big edge on the ip6000d are the light inks.

NOT REALLY AN EDGE. THE IP4000 HAS BETTER PRINT RESULTS AND FADES LESS.

The big drawback on the ip6000 is the lack of a dedicated text ink
cartridge. As the printhead nozzle set is smallish, it's not as fast
as other printers in the line which is rather why I bring up the
i960... double the nozzles at the same dpi, which while it doesn't
have the dual paper trays it does support duplex printing IIRC.

This whole "business documents" is some PC world rag sugestion that
boils down to doesn't print text as fast or as well. Valid enough
except anyone considering this printer would be doing so because it's
a photo printer, not a document printer. If you need CD printing,
want the dual trays, and heck even a spiffy 2.5 inch screen

A WASTE OF TIME IF YOU EDIT WITH YOUR COMPUTER OR COPY THE JPG FILES TO
YOUR COMPUTER.

to print from solid state media great... go ip6000 if not the new
ip6600D. If you don't need these extra features... the i960 is most
spiffy.

2 GENERATIONS OUT OF DATE. HOW ABOUT AN EPSON MX80

 

[measekite]

I use an i960 - really good photo printer. I use snip inks and refill. What a pain in the ass.
Excellent color match with OEM and 5 clogs in a year of use. No duplex
printing, but I use it only for photos and color graphics. I use an HP 15P
laser printer for "business" documents. The i960 has more nozzles and is
reputed to be a better printer than its "upgrade" model, the ip6000. I
think there are still a few new ones in the pipeline.

(snip)

 

[Matt Zukowski]

not really an edge. the ip4000 has better print results and fades
less

This is your opinion. This isn't a fact.

It's true that canon inks fade quickly... even the new inks are only
rated at 10 years, and as the light inks are just watered down versions
of the full dye load inks they would be more prone to fading. But they
are not primary inks but fill inks.

a waste of time if you edit with your computer or copy the jpg files
to your computer.

Just because a printer has an extra feature doesn't mean you have to use
it.

2 generations out of date. how about an epson mx80

Or a i9900 perhaps? It's also two generations out of date. You said it
not me.

The i960 has twice the nozzles than the i960. This is a fact. It is
faster than the ip6000d. this is a fact. While released in 2003 it's
still better than the ip6000d. This is a fact.

You reccomend the i5200, yet it's head is the ip5000 head. That is last
generation. by your logic that's bad.

 

[measekite]

This is your opinion. This isn't a fact.
WWW.PCMAG.COM



It's true that canon inks fade quickly... even the new inks are only
rated at 10 years, and as the light inks are just watered down
versions of the full dye load inks they would be more prone to
fading. But they are not primary inks but fill inks.


Just because a printer has an extra feature doesn't mean you have to
use it.

THEN DO NOT PAY FOR IT. DUMASS

Or a i9900 perhaps? It's also two generations out of date. You said
it not me.

U R A PUTZ. THIS PRINTER CAME OUT 15 MONTHS AGO AND IS STILL CURRENT IN
THE CANON LINE. THERE ARE NO REPLACEDMENTS.. WHY ARE U STOOOPID

The i960 has twice the nozzles than the i960. This is a fact. It is
faster than the ip6000d. this is a fact. While released in 2003 it's
still better than the ip6000d. This is a fact.

You reccomend the i5200, yet it's head is the ip5000 head. That is
last generation. by your logic that's bad.

JERKOFF

 

[Matt Zukowski]

www.pcmag.com

So what you are telling us this isn't even your opinion but that of
someone else who got published in pcmag? Oh please! And you don't even
link to the articals in question.

Your bigest quote from them are their tests on business documents, which
is nutz because we're talking photo printers... photo printers.

Someone buying a photo printer isn't likely interested in business
documents. Please try to understand this... "photo printers"

then do not pay for it

And buy the older generation i960

You see... this is what you do not understand. The ip6000 and even the
ip6600d come with a spiffy screen. If you want a 6 ink tank printer
current generation... you have no choice but to buy it with a screen.
It's very simple.

u r a putz. this printer came out 15 months ago and is still current
in the canon line. there are no replacements... why are u stooopid

If a generation is 12 months this would be two generations ago. Your
the one who talked about generations being a qualifying factor rather
than... I don't know quality and features. By saying this you admit you
are stupid.

You see... there was never a direct replacement for the i960. The
ip6000d was a downgrade in many respects. So just like one might
consider the i9900 even though it's not a pixma, not a current
generation printer... there is not a replacement for it yet.

Now one might consider the ip6600d... but the jury is still out on this
issue. But someone like your self would still reccomend the ip4000 even
though it's last generation and 2pl... and further more would claim that
the ip5000 is a bad choice because it's slower. So what you are saying
is one may consider an older generation printer if it's faster an
provides better photo quality. So using your logic the i960 is a good
choice. Glad we can agree on this issue

The i960 is a good choice over the ip6000d because

1. It's faster
2. marginaly better photo quality
3. doesn't have that screen you don't need cause it supports pictbridge

It's so nice when both you and I can agree on something.

 

[Joel Kolstad]

The iP4000 doesn't have automatic duplexing???? Where did you get that bit
of information? My iP4000 and iP3000 certainly have that function.

Hmmm, my mistake! Sorry about that... I thought the 'D' stood for
'duplexing' -- maybe it stands for 'display?'

OK, so the $30 is just for the LCD...

 

[measekite]

So what you are telling us this isn't even your opinion but that of
someone else who got published in pcmag? Oh please! And you don't
even link to the articals in question.

Your bigest quote from them are their tests on business documents,
which is nutz because we're talking photo printers... photo printers.

Someone buying a photo printer isn't likely interested in business
documents.

DO YOU EXPECT THE TIGHT PENNY PINCHING BRITS ON THIS NG TO BUY ONE
PRINTER FOR PHOTOS AND ANOTHER FOR BUSINESS DOCS. YOU MEAN THEY NEVER
WRITE LETTERS, PRINT A SPREADSHEET, A FEW ARTICLES FROM THE INTERNET,
KEEP TRACK OF ACCOUNTING OR THE MILLIONS OF USES THAT ARE NOT PRINTING
PHOTOGRAPHS.

YOU EITHER GOT TO BE A KID OR A DUMB OLD FART LIKE BURTIE FURTIE.

Please try to understand this... "photo printers"



And buy the older generation i960

You see... this is what you do not understand. The ip6000 and even
the ip6600d come with a spiffy screen.

MY DICK IS SPIFFY

If you want a 6 ink tank printer current generation... you have no
choice but to buy it with a screen. It's very simple.

FORGET 6 AND GO FOR 8.

If a generation is 12 months this would be two generations ago.

I NEVER SAID THAT YOU DUMB ****

Your the one who talked about generations being a qualifying factor
rather than... I don't know quality and features. By saying this you
admit you are stupid.

You see... there was never a direct replacement for the i960. The
ip6000d was a downgrade in many respects.

HA HA HA OR IS IT HE HE HE

So just like one might consider the i9900 even though it's not a
pixma, not a current generation printer... there is not a replacement
for it yet.

Now one might consider the ip6600d... but the jury is still out on
this issue. But someone like your self would still reccomend the
ip4000 even though it's last generation and 2pl... and further more
would claim that the ip5000 is a bad choice because it's slower. So
what you are saying is one may consider an older generation printer if
it's faster an provides better photo quality. So using your logic the
i960 is a good choice. Glad we can agree on this issue

The i960 is a good choice over the ip6000d because

1. It's faster
2. marginaly better photo quality
3. doesn't have that screen you don't need cause it supports pictbridge

DOES NOT DUPLEX
DOES NOT HAVE DUAL PAPER TRAYS

 

[Matt Zukowski]

I would expect residents in the UK to consider photo printers because of
the fact that from my understanding the cost for professional printing
is higher. I.e. even going with OEM inks it may cost less to print from
home. What we need to learn today is how to put our selves in other
people's shoes and that different markets have different prices.

While the i960 doesn't have dual paper trays nor duplex unless you get
the spiffy add on (DPU-10 Duplex Printing Unit) this is pretty much
useless in a photo printer.

Whether a person needs a photo printer or a general purpose printer is
entirely up to them. But the fact of the matter is the i960 has double
the nozzles at the same dpi as the ip6000, the i960 is faster. This
resolves the issue with your complaint on speed. Also it has that
spiffy switch at the top to jump from using 4x6 or a4/letter. Very handy.

And because you agree 100% that the i9900 has NOT been replaced by a
pixma and is a good printer, clearly you must also agree the i960 was
wasn't really replaced by a pixma with the exception of the ip6600d
which no one has ever seen yet. So you see... by following your advice
the i960 is a good choice.

Thank you for your input... this resolves any confusion with users who
are not aware that sometimes newer models are not as good as older models.