Test for Canon IP5000

[Guest]

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

Hi, im thinking about buying a Canon IP 4000 or 5000, and i'd like to see
some reviews before i buy. Does anyone have a link to a 5000er-Review or
even better: A comparison between 4000 and 5000?

Sorry for my bad english,

thx and bye
Thomas


--
gnuPG key: 0x012CF58B

 

[Guest]

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

Müller Thomas wrote:
> Hi, im thinking about buying a Canon IP 4000 or 5000, and i'd like to
> see some reviews before i buy. Does anyone have a link to a
> 5000er-Review or even better: A comparison between 4000 and 5000?
>
> Sorry for my bad english,
>
> thx and bye
> Thomas

I looked some about those two printers and, from i see, 5000 model just
came out so it's even not available in some countries yet. In theory, 5000
model has 1pl drops while 4000 has 2 pl ones, so theoretically, 5000 model
has double resolution, i.e. 9600x2400 dpi.
Other features are the same, except the price is almost 70% higher...so,
make sure you really NEED that resolution. I have 4000 model and with proper
photo paper result is far more than excellent, so it's really all i need. I
can't really imagine any better image than one came from 4000...since this
one is already perfect...
Secondly, i've read somewhere that higher resolution heads tend to break
sooner than lower ones, like info was that (in old models) i550, i850 will
last longer than i950.

 

[Guest]

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

SleeperMan wrote:

> Müller Thomas wrote:
>> Hi, im thinking about buying a Canon IP 4000 or 5000, and i'd like to
>> see some reviews before i buy. Does anyone have a link to a
>> 5000er-Review or even better: A comparison between 4000 and 5000?
>>
>> Sorry for my bad english,
>>
>> thx and bye
>> Thomas
>
> I looked some about those two printers and, from i see, 5000 model just
> came out so it's even not available in some countries yet.
In Germany it is already available...

> Other features are the same, except the price is almost 70% higher...so,
> make sure you really NEED that resolution.
.... And the difference here is much smaller, more like 30%


But im specially interested if the 5000 needs less .. ehm.. fuel/color/dye
to print fotos, due to the smaller dropplet-size. This of course could only
be proved/disproved by a real test, thats why im looking for a review.

Thomas

--
gnuPG key: 0x012CF58B

 

[Guest]

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

"Müller Thomas" <spam@elfstone.de> wrote in message
news:cm7tu1$34c$1@svr7.m-online.net...

> But im specially interested if the 5000 needs less .. ehm.. fuel/color/dye
> to print fotos, due to the smaller dropplet-size. This of course could only
> be proved/disproved by a real test, thats why im looking for a review.

Usually ink limits are set by the media characteristics and the dye loads of
the ink. Making the drops twice as small (all else being equal) would
typically mean the need for twice as many drops to provide to proper amount of
saturation on the media.

Regards,
Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

 

[Guest]

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

>
> But im specially interested if the 5000 needs less .. ehm.. fuel/color/dye
> to print fotos, due to the smaller dropplet-size. This of course could
only
> be proved/disproved by a real test, thats why im looking for a review.
>
> Thomas
>

Tom's Hardware recently did a printer review that included cost of use.
Among others, the Canon 4000 and 5000 were tested and they found, oddly
enough, that the ip4000 was both faster and easier on ink (slightly in both
cases) than the ip5000.

http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041025/index.html

Cheers,

Jeff H

 

[Guest]

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

Bob Headrick wrote:
> "Müller Thomas" <spam@elfstone.de> wrote in message
> news:cm7tu1$34c$1@svr7.m-online.net...
>
>> But im specially interested if the 5000 needs less .. ehm..
>> fuel/color/dye to print fotos, due to the smaller dropplet-size.
>> This of course could only be proved/disproved by a real test, thats
>> why im looking for a review.
>
> Usually ink limits are set by the media characteristics and the dye
> loads of the ink. Making the drops twice as small (all else being
> equal) would typically mean the need for twice as many drops to
> provide to proper amount of saturation on the media.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Headrick, not speaking for my employer HP

MY thinking exactly...since 5000 has 1pl drops, it also has 9600x2400 dpi
instead of 4800x1200, which means, (just assuming) that if 4000 at normal
quality prints at 2400x600, then 5000 would print at same setting with
4800x1200...which again means that same amount of ink is used while it can
happen that it will be slower, due to more dots needed to print. Again, i
think it's worthed to think twice before you pay so much more for just a
little better (if any). Official site states same amount of pages for both
models, but i doubt if that comes true in practice...

 

[Guest]

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

Jeff H wrote:

>>
>> But im specially interested if the 5000 needs less .. ehm..
>> fuel/color/dye to print fotos, due to the smaller dropplet-size. This of
>> course could
> only
>> be proved/disproved by a real test, thats why im looking for a review.
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>
> Tom's Hardware recently did a printer review that included cost of use.
> Among others, the Canon 4000 and 5000 were tested and they found, oddly
> enough, that the ip4000 was both faster and easier on ink (slightly in
> both cases) than the ip5000.
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041025/index.html

The fact that the 4000er is faster than the 5000 is widley known, and its
bretty obvious that printing at a smaller resolution is faster, because you
have to spend less time on placing dots.

But that the 5000 needs more ink seems strange to me, but ill read the test,
that was what i was looking for, thx.

Thomas


--
gnuPG key: 0x012CF58B

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeff H" <Iamnot@home.ca> wrote in message
news:BgMhd.170199$Np3.6875329@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> >
>> But im specially interested if the 5000 needs less .. ehm..
>> fuel/color/dye
>> to print fotos, due to the smaller dropplet-size. This of course could
> only
>> be proved/disproved by a real test, thats why im looking for a review.
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>
> Tom's Hardware recently did a printer review that included cost of use.
> Among others, the Canon 4000 and 5000 were tested and they found, oddly
> enough, that the ip4000 was both faster and easier on ink (slightly in
> both
> cases) than the ip5000.
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20041025/index.html
>

I would certainly expect the iP4000 to be faster and question their testing
if they found the iP5000 to use more ink???

 

[Guest]

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

In article PC Medic says...
> I would certainly expect the iP4000 to be faster and question their testing
> if they found the iP5000 to use more ink???
>
Some re-reading may be called for. The iP5000 was slightly cheaper per
page in Tom's tests. Comparing 1 sample of each type can be misleading.
A German Lab tests inkjets for consumer organisations around the globe
and they found that the canon i560 could do many more pages of text than
an i860. Both printers use the same BCI-3eBK cartridge and 600dpi heads
for text. As far as text goes they should have been equal performers.