Canon iP4000 or iP5000 users

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

Has anyone tried the new Canon iP4000 or iP5000 inkjet printers yet? I think
the duplex printing would be really hand. Also, any visual differences
between the iP4000's 2 picoliter and the iP5000's 1 picoliter drops? Common
sense tells me there should be, but real world...who knows? I have only seen
one review on the iP4000.
17 answers Last reply
More about canon ip4000 ip5000 users
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    mooreb wrote:
    > Has anyone tried the new Canon iP4000 or iP5000 inkjet printers yet?
    > I think the duplex printing would be really hand. Also, any visual
    > differences between the iP4000's 2 picoliter and the iP5000's 1
    > picoliter drops? Common sense tells me there should be, but real
    > world...who knows? I have only seen one review on the iP4000.

    Can you post the link of that review? For iP4000 i mean.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    news:oysbd.4247$F6.1189176@news.siol.net...
    > mooreb wrote:
    > > Has anyone tried the new Canon iP4000 or iP5000 inkjet printers yet?
    > > I think the duplex printing would be really hand. Also, any visual
    > > differences between the iP4000's 2 picoliter and the iP5000's 1
    > > picoliter drops? Common sense tells me there should be, but real
    > > world...who knows? I have only seen one review on the iP4000.
    >
    > Can you post the link of that review? For iP4000 i mean.
    >
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_ip4000.html is one I know.

    But I'm getting a bit suspicious of the enthusiasm Steve always shows for
    the latest hardware.

    Awaiting real comments from real people who have to eg pay for their own ink
    etc.

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

    On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:41:02 -0700, "mooreb" <mooreb@u.washington.edu>
    wrote:

    >Has anyone tried the new Canon iP4000 or iP5000 inkjet printers yet? I think
    >the duplex printing would be really hand. Also, any visual differences
    >between the iP4000's 2 picoliter and the iP5000's 1 picoliter drops? Common
    >sense tells me there should be, but real world...who knows? I have only seen
    >one review on the iP4000.

    Just got the Canon iP4000 a couple of weeks ago and i'm well pleased
    with it. However, the duplexing wouldn't do one task that i wanted.
    See the following thread
    j8pnl05qs6lqr3m3l269i459rgm879aghc@4ax.com

    Martin
    ©¿©¬
    >
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "mooreb" <mooreb@u.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<ckl3bc$nhl$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu>...
    > Has anyone tried the new Canon iP4000 or iP5000 inkjet printers yet? I think
    > the duplex printing would be really hand.

    Duplex (two sided) printing on an inkjet printer is not as good as one
    might think. Get a laser printer if you want/need two sided printing.

    With laser printers, the toner is dry and is deposited on the
    "surface" of the paper so does not show up that much on the back side.
    With inkjet, the ink is "absorbed into" the paper so it really shows
    up on the back side.

    Maybe two sided printing for color photos on special two sided paper
    might be OK but then I think it is better to print one side and let it
    dry for a while before printing the other side. Manual feed would be
    just as good in that case.

    For me, duplex printing with an inkjet printer is a non issue.
    Mo
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I installed my new iP4000 yesterday as an addition to the other Canon
    printers I have. The duplexing feature works fine and the image quality is
    excellent. Other than the duplexing feature, it's equivalent to the i860 and
    any information about that printer would apply to this one as well. As I do
    more printing with this model I'll be able to make a better comparison
    between the various models I own, but from what I've seen so far this
    printer is outstanding.
    --
    Ron Cohen

    <Martin ©¿©¬ @mandeREMOVETHIS.plus.com> wrote in message
    news:0n8tm05dbd7vc24smkcm3r16s6b4484e3t@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:41:02 -0700, "mooreb" <mooreb@u.washington.edu>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Has anyone tried the new Canon iP4000 or iP5000 inkjet printers yet? I
    think
    > >the duplex printing would be really hand. Also, any visual differences
    > >between the iP4000's 2 picoliter and the iP5000's 1 picoliter drops?
    Common
    > >sense tells me there should be, but real world...who knows? I have only
    seen
    > >one review on the iP4000.
    >
    > Just got the Canon iP4000 a couple of weeks ago and i'm well pleased
    > with it. However, the duplexing wouldn't do one task that i wanted.
    > See the following thread
    > j8pnl05qs6lqr3m3l269i459rgm879aghc@4ax.com
    >
    > Martin
    > ©¿©¬
    > >
    >


    ---
    AVG reports Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.777 / Virus Database: 524 - Release Date: 10/14/2004
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Ron Cohen wrote:
    > I installed my new iP4000 yesterday as an addition to the other Canon
    > printers I have. The duplexing feature works fine and the image
    > quality is excellent. Other than the duplexing feature, it's
    > equivalent to the i860 and any information about that printer would
    > apply to this one as well. As I do more printing with this model I'll
    > be able to make a better comparison between the various models I own,
    > but from what I've seen so far this printer is outstanding.
    >
    What about it's start-up?
    my (ex) i550) needed quite a while for first page to start printing - head
    cleaning and god knows what else...
    Does ip4000 behaves the same?
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Mo wrote:
    > "mooreb" <mooreb@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
    > news:<ckl3bc$nhl$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu>...
    >> Has anyone tried the new Canon iP4000 or iP5000 inkjet printers yet?
    >> I think the duplex printing would be really hand.
    >
    > Duplex (two sided) printing on an inkjet printer is not as good as one
    > might think. Get a laser printer if you want/need two sided printing.
    >
    > With laser printers, the toner is dry and is deposited on the
    > "surface" of the paper so does not show up that much on the back side.
    > With inkjet, the ink is "absorbed into" the paper so it really shows
    > up on the back side.
    >
    > Maybe two sided printing for color photos on special two sided paper
    > might be OK but then I think it is better to print one side and let it
    > dry for a while before printing the other side. Manual feed would be
    > just as good in that case.
    >
    > For me, duplex printing with an inkjet printer is a non issue.
    > Mo

    With my i550 i did print in duplex (manual, sure) several times and i never
    had this issue of ink coming through. I guess that quality of plain paper
    also counts. The question is, however, when ip4000 does duplexing, is it ink
    on first side DRY when it pulls the sheet back or not...if not, first page
    can be smudged...
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message news:<2q5cd.4356$F6.1213551@news.siol.net>...
    >
    > With my i550 i did print in duplex (manual, sure) several times and i never
    > had this issue of ink coming through. I guess that quality of plain paper
    > also counts.

    Actually what I meant was not that the ink would bleed "through" the
    paper. What I meant was that since the ink is absorbed into the paper
    it is "closer" to the backside surface making it easier to see the
    black print.

    For example, a standard sheet of 20lb paper is about .003 inch thick.
    If the ink is absorbed into the paper 1/3 of the thickness, then there
    is only .002 inch of paper to obscure the printing on the front side.
    With a laser printer, the toner is on the surface of the paper so the
    full .003 inch of paper serves to obscure the printing on the front
    side.

    I have both inkjet and a laser printer and the difference in being
    able to see the front ink from the back side is substantial.

    But in rethinking my statement, it may not apply as much to the ip4000
    or ip5000 printers that have 2 cartridges of black ink. One cartridge
    has black "pigment" ink so the pigment ink would tend to sit on the
    surface of the paper with less absorbtion into the paper. It would
    apply to the other ipxxxx printers that do not have the black pigment
    ink cartridge.

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

    Mo wrote:
    > "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    > news:<2q5cd.4356$F6.1213551@news.siol.net>...
    >>
    >> With my i550 i did print in duplex (manual, sure) several times and
    >> i never had this issue of ink coming through. I guess that quality
    >> of plain paper also counts.
    >
    > Actually what I meant was not that the ink would bleed "through" the
    > paper. What I meant was that since the ink is absorbed into the paper
    > it is "closer" to the backside surface making it easier to see the
    > black print.
    >
    > For example, a standard sheet of 20lb paper is about .003 inch thick.
    > If the ink is absorbed into the paper 1/3 of the thickness, then there
    > is only .002 inch of paper to obscure the printing on the front side.
    > With a laser printer, the toner is on the surface of the paper so the
    > full .003 inch of paper serves to obscure the printing on the front
    > side.
    >
    > I have both inkjet and a laser printer and the difference in being
    > able to see the front ink from the back side is substantial.
    >
    > But in rethinking my statement, it may not apply as much to the ip4000
    > or ip5000 printers that have 2 cartridges of black ink. One cartridge
    > has black "pigment" ink so the pigment ink would tend to sit on the
    > surface of the paper with less absorbtion into the paper. It would
    > apply to the other ipxxxx printers that do not have the black pigment
    > ink cartridge.
    >
    > Mo

    You have the point here. I never even looked towards the light to see the
    difference, though.
    I'll do that once.
    ip4000 does have both blacks, but if i understood correct, pigmented one is
    used for text, while dye one is used only for photos...or is it?
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message news:<awfcd.4377$F6.1219606@news.siol.net>...
    >
    > You have the point here. I never even looked towards the light to see the
    > difference, though.
    > I'll do that once.
    > ip4000 does have both blacks, but if i understood correct, pigmented one is
    > used for text, while dye one is used only for photos...or is it?

    My understanding is that the black pigment ink is used for text. The
    black dye ink is used for photos. This is because the color inks are
    dye based so the black dye ink can mix better with the color dye inks.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    It seems to be a little faster than either the s820 or i950 that I have.
    From a powered off state and using auto power on, printing a three sheet web
    page (an eBay listing) took 27 seconds from the time I clicked on print
    until the first sheet had ink on it. With the printer already powered on, it
    started printing the first sheet in 4 seconds.
    -
    Ron Cohen

    "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    news:THUbd.4308$F6.1208522@news.siol.net...
    > Ron Cohen wrote:
    > > I installed my new iP4000 yesterday as an addition to the other Canon
    > > printers I have. The duplexing feature works fine and the image
    > > quality is excellent. Other than the duplexing feature, it's
    > > equivalent to the i860 and any information about that printer would
    > > apply to this one as well. As I do more printing with this model I'll
    > > be able to make a better comparison between the various models I own,
    > > but from what I've seen so far this printer is outstanding.
    > >
    > What about it's start-up?
    > my (ex) i550) needed quite a while for first page to start printing - head
    > cleaning and god knows what else...
    > Does ip4000 behaves the same?
    >
    >


    ---
    AVG reports Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.777 / Virus Database: 524 - Release Date: 10/15/2004
  12. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Mo wrote:
    > "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    > news:<awfcd.4377$F6.1219606@news.siol.net>...
    >>
    >> You have the point here. I never even looked towards the light to
    >> see the difference, though.
    >> I'll do that once.
    >> ip4000 does have both blacks, but if i understood correct, pigmented
    >> one is used for text, while dye one is used only for photos...or is
    >> it?
    >
    > My understanding is that the black pigment ink is used for text. The
    > black dye ink is used for photos. This is because the color inks are
    > dye based so the black dye ink can mix better with the color dye inks.

    Yep...my opinion exactly. From i've read, above statement is only thing that
    separates 3000 and 4000 in quality.
    It's just kinda funny...why model 3000 still uses bci6 carts with dye ink
    and not bci3e with pigment ones...i bet that pigment ones would still mix
    better...or maybe not...
    It's just really f+++ing stupid that i just bought COMPLETE set of bci3e
    inks (all 4 of them) and now they won't fit in ip4000...
    i just thought that carts are the problem for bad printing - i was wrong...
    At least black can be used...
  13. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    SleeperMan wrote:

    >It's just kinda funny...why model 3000 still uses bci6 carts with dye ink
    >and not bci3e with pigment ones...i bet that pigment ones would still mix
    >better...or maybe not...

    The only BCI-3e ink tank that uses pigment ink is the BCI-3eBk. The
    other BCI-3 tanks are dye-based ink.

    >It's just really f+++ing stupid that i just bought COMPLETE set of bci3e
    >inks (all 4 of them) and now they won't fit in ip4000...

    Actually the BCI-3 and BCI-6 ink tanks are the same for the CMY colour
    inks. The series changed numbers to comply with the 6-colour inkjets and
    Canon is now simplifying the number system by using the same number
    series in all of their current inkjets. You can safely use the BCI-3 CMY
    ink tanks in your iP4000 printer.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:tf6dnTlTa7mEdu_cRVn-tg@golden.net...
    > SleeperMan wrote:
    >
    >>It's just kinda funny...why model 3000 still uses bci6 carts with dye ink
    >>and not bci3e with pigment ones...i bet that pigment ones would still mix
    >>better...or maybe not...
    >
    > The only BCI-3e ink tank that uses pigment ink is the BCI-3eBk. The
    > other BCI-3 tanks are dye-based ink.
    >
    >>It's just really f+++ing stupid that i just bought COMPLETE set of bci3e
    >>inks (all 4 of them) and now they won't fit in ip4000...
    >
    > Actually the BCI-3 and BCI-6 ink tanks are the same for the CMY colour
    > inks. The series changed numbers to comply with the 6-colour inkjets and
    > Canon is now simplifying the number system by using the same number
    > series in all of their current inkjets. You can safely use the BCI-3 CMY
    > ink tanks in your iP4000 printer.

    You can safely do this (no damage to printer) is correct.
    However it is not recommended due to different optical density in the inks
    which can (and often does) result in less than desirable photo print quality
    due to some color shift.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Bill wrote:
    > SleeperMan wrote:
    >
    >> It's just kinda funny...why model 3000 still uses bci6 carts with
    >> dye ink and not bci3e with pigment ones...i bet that pigment ones
    >> would still mix better...or maybe not...
    >
    > The only BCI-3e ink tank that uses pigment ink is the BCI-3eBk. The
    > other BCI-3 tanks are dye-based ink.
    >
    >> It's just really f+++ing stupid that i just bought COMPLETE set of
    >> bci3e inks (all 4 of them) and now they won't fit in ip4000...
    >
    > Actually the BCI-3 and BCI-6 ink tanks are the same for the CMY colour
    > inks. The series changed numbers to comply with the 6-colour inkjets
    > and Canon is now simplifying the number system by using the same
    > number series in all of their current inkjets. You can safely use the
    > BCI-3 CMY ink tanks in your iP4000 printer.

    Are you totally sure? 'cause i really don't want to ruin my brand new
    printer...
    i did read somewhere about colors in 3 series being different than ones in 6
    series, but if you think, it would be logical that if this would be true,
    Canon would change the geometry of the cart, so it wouldn't fit like it does
    now...
    In any case, if what you say is true, i must seal my carts really well in
    order to wait for current to be empty...
  16. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
    news:TnLcd.4440$F6.1236246@news.siol.net...
    > Bill wrote:
    >> SleeperMan wrote:
    >>
    >>> It's just kinda funny...why model 3000 still uses bci6 carts with
    >>> dye ink and not bci3e with pigment ones...i bet that pigment ones
    >>> would still mix better...or maybe not...
    >>
    >> The only BCI-3e ink tank that uses pigment ink is the BCI-3eBk. The
    >> other BCI-3 tanks are dye-based ink.
    >>
    >>> It's just really f+++ing stupid that i just bought COMPLETE set of
    >>> bci3e inks (all 4 of them) and now they won't fit in ip4000...
    >>
    >> Actually the BCI-3 and BCI-6 ink tanks are the same for the CMY colour
    >> inks. The series changed numbers to comply with the 6-colour inkjets
    >> and Canon is now simplifying the number system by using the same
    >> number series in all of their current inkjets. You can safely use the
    >> BCI-3 CMY ink tanks in your iP4000 printer.
    >
    > Are you totally sure? 'cause i really don't want to ruin my brand new
    > printer...
    > i did read somewhere about colors in 3 series being different than ones in
    > 6 series, but if you think, it would be logical that if this would be
    > true, Canon would change the geometry of the cart, so it wouldn't fit like
    > it does now...
    > In any case, if what you say is true, i must seal my carts really well in
    > order to wait for current to be empty...
    Will not damage printer but may get less than desirable quality in photos
    due to difference in density between 3's and 6's
  17. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    PC Medic wrote:
    > "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message
    > news:tf6dnTlTa7mEdu_cRVn-tg@golden.net...
    >> SleeperMan wrote:
    >>
    >>> It's just kinda funny...why model 3000 still uses bci6 carts with
    >>> dye ink and not bci3e with pigment ones...i bet that pigment ones
    >>> would still mix better...or maybe not...
    >>
    >> The only BCI-3e ink tank that uses pigment ink is the BCI-3eBk. The
    >> other BCI-3 tanks are dye-based ink.
    >>
    >>> It's just really f+++ing stupid that i just bought COMPLETE set of
    >>> bci3e inks (all 4 of them) and now they won't fit in ip4000...
    >>
    >> Actually the BCI-3 and BCI-6 ink tanks are the same for the CMY
    >> colour inks. The series changed numbers to comply with the 6-colour
    >> inkjets and Canon is now simplifying the number system by using the
    >> same number series in all of their current inkjets. You can safely
    >> use the BCI-3 CMY ink tanks in your iP4000 printer.
    >
    > You can safely do this (no damage to printer) is correct.
    > However it is not recommended due to different optical density in the
    > inks which can (and often does) result in less than desirable photo
    > print quality due to some color shift.

    Ahaaa...now i finally know the real difference between two...so, basically,
    6 is made for smaller drops and thus has more dense colors...
    thanks!
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Canon Peripherals