Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon i860 Alternative

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
July 26, 2004 4:20:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

A few weeks back I purchased a Canon i860 printer. Have been testing
it out and these are some opinions I have:

Photos are generally ok, though almost objectionably brighter than the
original image.

Text is ok with the pigmented ink cartridge. Despite some claims of
superior text based upon the use of this cartridge, I find the text
(at all quality levels) below that of a previous Lexmark 3200 and HP
business inkjet 2200.

Mechanics in operation are good; reasonably quiet and fast

I'd say that 70% of my use is for text . . . . draft as well as
permanent copies. Not large volume (I don't have either the need or
the budget for separate photo and inexpensive laser). I like the idea
of the separate cartridge to avoid using colours or other means for
routine grayscale text printing. And the relatively low costs of
Canon ink supplies (as well as the option of 3rd party . . . but the
Canon inks are cheap enough that I can consider not even using 3rd
party inks). But I wish that the photo images were of better quality,
getting away from that overly bright, colourful image. Is this a
quality of Canon consumer printers in general? I'm looking for user
comments and recommendations for a printer that produces excellent
quality text and very good photos. I feel that the Canon i860 does
not do either. Even better if the recommended printer is somewhat
economical either through cartridge prices and/or 3rd party ink
solutions. Is there such a beast??
--

Monroe

More about : canon i860 alternative

Anonymous
July 26, 2004 4:20:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 00:20:46 GMT, Monroe <amonroe@telusplanet.net>
wrote:

>A few weeks back I purchased a Canon i860 printer. Have been testing
>it out and these are some opinions I have:
>
>Photos are generally ok, though almost objectionably brighter than the
>original image.
>
>Text is ok with the pigmented ink cartridge. Despite some claims of
>superior text based upon the use of this cartridge, I find the text
>(at all quality levels) below that of a previous Lexmark 3200 and HP
>business inkjet 2200.
>
>Mechanics in operation are good; reasonably quiet and fast
>
>I'd say that 70% of my use is for text . . . . draft as well as
>permanent copies. Not large volume (I don't have either the need or
>the budget for separate photo and inexpensive laser). I like the idea
>of the separate cartridge to avoid using colours or other means for
>routine grayscale text printing. And the relatively low costs of
>Canon ink supplies (as well as the option of 3rd party . . . but the
>Canon inks are cheap enough that I can consider not even using 3rd
>party inks). But I wish that the photo images were of better quality,
>getting away from that overly bright, colourful image. Is this a
>quality of Canon consumer printers in general? I'm looking for user
>comments and recommendations for a printer that produces excellent
>quality text and very good photos. I feel that the Canon i860 does
>not do either. Even better if the recommended printer is somewhat
>economical either through cartridge prices and/or 3rd party ink
>solutions. Is there such a beast??



The text output of the canon is very high quality, even in draft mode
the print is fantastic. Your problem may be from using low quality
paper. You should be using coated and or inkjet papers for your text
and you will see laser sharp results even in draft mode.

As far as photos, you give no information on your color profiles,
driver settings, your working space or anything about your color
management let alone your printing media , photos or resolution.

This would lead me to believe that the unit is in good working order
and maybe your settings and media need to be looked at.

There is no magic in printing photos. Even with the best photo
printer, the output is only as good as the settings and environment
the printer is given to work in and the quality of the photo and
paper.

There are just tooo many users of canon printers that would highly
disagree with your findings and I am sure some will voice their
opinion about your comparison to lexmark...

Good luck.. I hope you get your equipment calibrated closely
July 26, 2004 10:31:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <q2j8g09s0ri325qnqf7f4fubaeern0vvii@4ax.com>,
amonroe@telusplanet.net says...
> A few weeks back I purchased a Canon i860 printer. Have been testing
> it out and these are some opinions I have:
>
> Photos are generally ok, though almost objectionably brighter than the
> original image.
>
> Text is ok with the pigmented ink cartridge. Despite some claims of
> superior text based upon the use of this cartridge, I find the text
> (at all quality levels) below that of a previous Lexmark 3200 and HP
> business inkjet 2200.
>
> Mechanics in operation are good; reasonably quiet and fast
>
> I'd say that 70% of my use is for text . . . . draft as well as
> permanent copies. Not large volume (I don't have either the need or
> the budget for separate photo and inexpensive laser). I like the idea
> of the separate cartridge to avoid using colours or other means for
> routine grayscale text printing. And the relatively low costs of
> Canon ink supplies (as well as the option of 3rd party . . . but the
> Canon inks are cheap enough that I can consider not even using 3rd
> party inks). But I wish that the photo images were of better quality,
> getting away from that overly bright, colourful image. Is this a
> quality of Canon consumer printers in general? I'm looking for user
> comments and recommendations for a printer that produces excellent
> quality text and very good photos. I feel that the Canon i860 does
> not do either. Even better if the recommended printer is somewhat
> economical either through cartridge prices and/or 3rd party ink
> solutions. Is there such a beast??
> --
>
> Monroe
>

I have been using (and LOVING) Canon ink jets since the very first Bubble jet
printer hit the market.

I dont wish for you to get the wrong idea, I have no brand loyalty
whatsoever, and I try everything that comes along that looks like it might do
a good job.

There are two Epson Photo-Stylus printers in the room with me right now (785-
EPX and an 825, (one of them has been serving as a foot-rest for me for
several months). If I could keep them un-clogged long enough I'de use them,
but the most I've ever gotten out of either of them is 3 prints in a row
before the clogging starts causing flaws (not BIG flaws, but VISIBLE flaws).

I also have two Hp PhotoSmarts (7350 and 7660). The problem with the HP
printers is COST!!!.

Having started with a new pair of carts in the printer, then printing 8x10
prints 'til a cart needed changing, my per print ink cost ran to about $4 to
$7 PER PRINT! (most of my prints are dark and saturated because they are
taken indoors with the minimum flash I can get the exposure with). Of course
these cost figures are for ink carts bought at retail (shudder)

Currently hooked to this computer are:

2 Canon i960 printers
1 Canon i950 printer
1 Sony dye-sub DPP-EPX (for proofs)
1 Olympus dye sub P-400 (for 7.5 x 9.5 prints)
1 Kodak Dye-sub 6000 Printer dock (also for proofs)

Using 4 digital and two film cameras I have taken (and sold prints of) more
than 400 photos in the last 2 months.

All but 20 of those prints were done on the Canons.

The 20 that were NOT done on the Canons came from the Olympus on a day when I
had a head clog on the Canon i960 I happened to have with me.

That head clog wouldn't clear, so a quick phone call to Canon brought me a
new print head by priority mail (with no argument at all from tech-support).

This happened ONCE before way back when the BJC-600E was their current top of
the line.

In side by side comparisons ALL my customers chose the Canon prints over any
of the dye sub prints.

For good results

1.Your Monitor MUST be calibrated properly

2.You should print from the best software you can afford

3.If there are flaws in the photo there will be flaws in the prints, so
PhotoShop or PaintShop Pro are a MUST.

4. (Left for last but VERY important) Choose your paper by buying and using
several types and brands at a time and then stick with what works, DONT
PRICE-SHOP for paper, as a rule of thumb, cheap paper either makes lousy
prints or prints that fade over a week or so.

If you are getting bad prints from a Canon "i" series printer, you are either
doing something wrong or the printer is defective.

All of the above applies whether printing Photos OR text/graphics.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Related resources
July 27, 2004 7:03:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Monroe wrote:

>Photos are generally ok, though almost objectionably brighter than the
>original image.

Calibration is key with any photo printer. Read up on calibration of
your monitor and matching output with your printer.

>Text is ok with the pigmented ink cartridge. Despite some claims of
>superior text based upon the use of this cartridge, I find the text
>(at all quality levels) below that of a previous Lexmark 3200 and HP
>business inkjet 2200.

Make sure you're using some kind of coated paper. If the paper is not
coated, then the ink soaks into the paper and becomes very rough.

Even the cheapest multi-purpose (coated) office paper will produce
excellent text.
July 27, 2004 9:56:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Larry" <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b6ea77618ea98159896fb@news.comcast.giganews.com...
: In article <q2j8g09s0ri325qnqf7f4fubaeern0vvii@4ax.com>,
: amonroe@telusplanet.net says...
: > A few weeks back I purchased a Canon i860 printer. Have been testing
: > it out and these are some opinions I have:
: >
: > Photos are generally ok, though almost objectionably brighter than the
: > original image.
: >
: > Text is ok with the pigmented ink cartridge. Despite some claims of
: > superior text based upon the use of this cartridge, I find the text
: > (at all quality levels) below that of a previous Lexmark 3200 and HP
: > business inkjet 2200.
<snip>
: > Monroe
: >
Just to say - I have an i865 and it's superb to my rather uncritical eye. I
use a generic injet paper and for prints Ilford photo cards using the
recommended profile.

Rob
July 27, 2004 12:16:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

to all who responded, it has piqued my interest in calibration,
profiles . . . . time to educate myself a bit more . . . thanks

As to the use to date, Canon software, selection of specific paper
within software ie. no manual input of profiles etc. (for photos . . .
Canon Photo Paper Pro; text using HP Bright White Inkjet, Georgia
Pacific Ink Jet). Highest allowable quality settings; using grayscle
for text. For comparison purposes, right out of the box, used an
Epson R300 for photos with images from an A80. The comparison I
mentioned wasn't all that accurate; I actually compared the colours
etc. to that seen by the eye in person . . . . compared colours of
fabrics, plastered walls, skin tones with that of the printed images.
The Epson just appeared truer to what we saw. But now I'm wondering
if the what I'll call "artificial" brightness of the Canon photo (not
to get me wrong, the photo is indeed good) is a function of some
non-optimal setting??

As to the text, I believe the inkjet papers I used are o.k. I still
don't see the quality of text that I see with some other (and older)
inkjets. And I do stand behind the text of that bastard Lexmark 3200
.. . . . they were incredibly good. It's just a shame that was the
only redeeming quality of that printer.

I need time to sort this out; we'll see . . . . . . .

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 03:03:14 -0400, Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:

>Monroe wrote:
>
>>Photos are generally ok, though almost objectionably brighter than the
>>original image.
>
>Calibration is key with any photo printer. Read up on calibration of
>your monitor and matching output with your printer.
>
>>Text is ok with the pigmented ink cartridge. Despite some claims of
>>superior text based upon the use of this cartridge, I find the text
>>(at all quality levels) below that of a previous Lexmark 3200 and HP
>>business inkjet 2200.
>
>Make sure you're using some kind of coated paper. If the paper is not
>coated, then the ink soaks into the paper and becomes very rough.
>
>Even the cheapest multi-purpose (coated) office paper will produce
>excellent text.

--

Monroe
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 1:38:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Monroe" <amonroe@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:ai3cg0t17er4gf827g891g8gd6ueilcb80@4ax.com...
> to all who responded, it has piqued my interest in calibration,
> profiles . . . . time to educate myself a bit more . . . thanks
>
> As to the use to date, Canon software, selection of specific paper
> within software ie. no manual input of profiles etc. (for photos . . .
> Canon Photo Paper Pro; text using HP Bright White Inkjet, Georgia
> Pacific Ink Jet). Highest allowable quality settings; using grayscle
> for text. For comparison purposes, right out of the box, used an
> Epson R300 for photos with images from an A80. The comparison I
> mentioned wasn't all that accurate; I actually compared the colours
> etc. to that seen by the eye in person . . . . compared colours of
> fabrics, plastered walls, skin tones with that of the printed images.
> The Epson just appeared truer to what we saw. But now I'm wondering
> if the what I'll call "artificial" brightness of the Canon photo (not
> to get me wrong, the photo is indeed good) is a function of some
> non-optimal setting??

You state the pictures came from an A80 camera. Have you tried using the
Easy Photo Print software that came with the printer. This is designed to
read the EXIF data from the image file and print a 'true' image of what the
camera saw based on its settings.

>
!