Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

canon pixma iP5000

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 10:42:34 PM

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

any reviews/experience?

More about : canon pixma ip5000

Anonymous
December 21, 2004 10:42:35 PM

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

"rizzia" <rizziafluitans@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41c80c2d$1_1@news.tm.net.my...
> any reviews/experience?

An absolutely fantastic printer for the money!
I, for one, cannot distinguish its photo output from that of my Canon i960
which is a six color printer.
Its duplex printing of text documents has worked flawlessly using 24# paper
and the characters it produces are laser-like black (using the pigmented
black ink cartridge).
I have only owned my iP5000 for about three weeks now but, as you can see,
I'm quite impressed with its performance. I don't know how durable its super
fine droplet (1 picoliter, 1/9600 inch pitch) head will prove to be but so
far I've printed about 100+ photos, mostly 4X6 and 5X7 without any clogging
or need for additional cleaning cycles. I am, however, only using Canon inks
at this time. I don't know about the effects of the so-called compatibles.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 10:42:36 PM

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

coinman1 wrote:
> "rizzia" <rizziafluitans@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:41c80c2d$1_1@news.tm.net.my...
>> any reviews/experience?
>
> An absolutely fantastic printer for the money!
> I, for one, cannot distinguish its photo output from that of my Canon
> i960 which is a six color printer.
> Its duplex printing of text documents has worked flawlessly using 24#
> paper and the characters it produces are laser-like black (using the
> pigmented black ink cartridge).
> I have only owned my iP5000 for about three weeks now but, as you can
> see, I'm quite impressed with its performance. I don't know how
> durable its super fine droplet (1 picoliter, 1/9600 inch pitch) head
> will prove to be but so far I've printed about 100+ photos, mostly
> 4X6 and 5X7 without any clogging or need for additional cleaning
> cycles. I am, however, only using Canon inks at this time. I don't
> know about the effects of the so-called compatibles.

Which paper do you use ? Original Canon or third party one? Photos on
Canon's PP101 (i have ip4000) come out fantastic, but paper is somewhat
expensive...
Related resources
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 10:42:37 PM

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

SleeperMan wrote:
> coinman1 wrote:
>
>>"rizzia" <rizziafluitans@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:41c80c2d$1_1@news.tm.net.my...
>>
>>>any reviews/experience?
>>
>>An absolutely fantastic printer for the money!
>>I, for one, cannot distinguish its photo output from that of my Canon
>>i960 which is a six color printer.
>>Its duplex printing of text documents has worked flawlessly using 24#
>>paper and the characters it produces are laser-like black (using the
>>pigmented black ink cartridge).
>>I have only owned my iP5000 for about three weeks now but, as you can
>>see, I'm quite impressed with its performance. I don't know how
>>durable its super fine droplet (1 picoliter, 1/9600 inch pitch) head
>>will prove to be but so far I've printed about 100+ photos, mostly
>>4X6 and 5X7 without any clogging or need for additional cleaning
>>cycles. I am, however, only using Canon inks at this time. I don't
>>know about the effects of the so-called compatibles.
>
>
> Which paper do you use ? Original Canon or third party one? Photos on
> Canon's PP101 (i have ip4000) come out fantastic, but paper is somewhat
> expensive...
>
>

I purchase my IP4000 before the IP5000 came out. I could bring it back
and get a IP5000 but I am hesitant.

I have never seen the same photos printed on both printers using the
same paper. Also, having a 1P droplet size as compared with a 2p size,
I am concerned with print head clogging, especially when the printer is
not used frequently. Using is all the time may not pose a problem but
once every 2 or 3 weeks, I just do not know.

I have not read about enough of them in the field for a long enough
period of time.

Again, I am wondering just how much better and in what type of photos
this has over the IP4000.

Also, I wonder how this compares with the IP8500, the 8 color 2picoliter
sibling of the i9900, considered to be the best of the best.

It seems that Canon does not want to provide the user with comparitive
samples of the same photo or photos from all of their printers using
Canon Photo Paper Pro and Photo Glossy so customers can make an informed
decision. Sometimes, I think Canon is afraid of the results. That
maybe the customer may discover that spending more money is mostly
marketing hype and that the maginal increase in results is not worth
spending the money.

These are my questions.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 10:42:38 PM

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

measekite wrote:
> SleeperMan wrote:
>> coinman1 wrote:
>>
>>> "rizzia" <rizziafluitans@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:41c80c2d$1_1@news.tm.net.my...
>>>
>>>> any reviews/experience?
>>>
>>> An absolutely fantastic printer for the money!
>>> I, for one, cannot distinguish its photo output from that of my
>>> Canon i960 which is a six color printer.
>>> Its duplex printing of text documents has worked flawlessly using
>>> 24# paper and the characters it produces are laser-like black
>>> (using the pigmented black ink cartridge).
>>> I have only owned my iP5000 for about three weeks now but, as you
>>> can see, I'm quite impressed with its performance. I don't know how
>>> durable its super fine droplet (1 picoliter, 1/9600 inch pitch) head
>>> will prove to be but so far I've printed about 100+ photos, mostly
>>> 4X6 and 5X7 without any clogging or need for additional cleaning
>>> cycles. I am, however, only using Canon inks at this time. I don't
>>> know about the effects of the so-called compatibles.
>>
>>
>> Which paper do you use ? Original Canon or third party one? Photos on
>> Canon's PP101 (i have ip4000) come out fantastic, but paper is
>> somewhat expensive...
>>
>>
>
> I purchase my IP4000 before the IP5000 came out. I could bring it
> back and get a IP5000 but I am hesitant.
>
> I have never seen the same photos printed on both printers using the
> same paper. Also, having a 1P droplet size as compared with a 2p
> size, I am concerned with print head clogging, especially when the
> printer is not used frequently. Using is all the time may not pose a
> problem but once every 2 or 3 weeks, I just do not know.
>
> I have not read about enough of them in the field for a long enough
> period of time.
>
> Again, I am wondering just how much better and in what type of photos
> this has over the IP4000.
>
> Also, I wonder how this compares with the IP8500, the 8 color
> 2picoliter sibling of the i9900, considered to be the best of the
> best.
> It seems that Canon does not want to provide the user with comparitive
> samples of the same photo or photos from all of their printers using
> Canon Photo Paper Pro and Photo Glossy so customers can make an
> informed decision. Sometimes, I think Canon is afraid of the
> results. That maybe the customer may discover that spending more
> money is mostly marketing hype and that the maginal increase in
> results is not worth spending the money.
>
> These are my questions.

Well, i can only tell that this PP101, as "the best canon's paper" really
rocks...It's just impossible to see any dots, so you really can't tell that
pic was actually printed. Previously i used some noname paper and results
were good, but i could always see dots if looking close...
I tried some semi-glossy everyday photo paper, however this is useless...ink
is not absorbing at all etc.
I've read old reviews about i950 and supposely it's head didn't last as long
as those with less carts. Especially those red and green additional carts in
some models are (as some tell) totally not needed.
If you ask me, what it's worthed is to get a model with additional photo
black(as ip4000). Other models...who knows, but to be honest, i really can't
imagine how much better picture can any better model print, since that one
from ip4000 is already perfect - even better than one from the lab. In this
respect, you have the point - i mean, what would people say if you could see
test print from ip4000 and one from ip5000 or 8500, while human eye coudln't
tell ANY difference...?
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 10:45:22 PM

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

I use Ilford Gallerie Smooth Gloss Paper for my extensive photo work. Ilford
Gallerie SGP is less expensive than Canon's Photo Paper Pro and produces
equivalent output, IMO.
As I said earlier, the output of the 4-color iP5000 is indistinguishable
from the 6-color output of my i960, both of which I still use daily.
There may be cases where having an 8-color printer would produce a
measurably superior output to the 1 picoliter iP5000 and perhaps justify the
initial higher cost and additional consumables utilized but I have not
experienced the need as yet.

"rizzia" <rizziafluitans@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41c80c2d$1_1@news.tm.net.my...
> any reviews/experience?
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 5:20:31 AM

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

coinman1 wrote:
> I use Ilford Gallerie Smooth Gloss Paper for my extensive photo work. Ilford
> Gallerie SGP is less expensive than Canon's Photo Paper Pro and produces
> equivalent output, IMO.
> As I said earlier, the output of the 4-color iP5000 is indistinguishable
> from the 6-color output of my i960, both of which I still use daily.
> There may be cases where having an 8-color printer would produce a
> measurably superior output to the 1 picoliter iP5000 and perhaps justify the
> initial higher cost and additional consumables utilized but I have not
> experienced the need as yet.
>

Have you noticed the ink pooling at all? I have that problem with the Ilford
paper in my i9950.

--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 5:20:31 AM

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

SleeperMan wrote:

> Well, i can only tell that this PP101, as "the best canon's paper" really
> rocks...It's just impossible to see any dots, so you really can't tell that
> pic was actually printed. Previously i used some noname paper and results
> were good, but i could always see dots if looking close...
> I tried some semi-glossy everyday photo paper, however this is useless...ink
> is not absorbing at all etc.
> I've read old reviews about i950 and supposely it's head didn't last as long
> as those with less carts. Especially those red and green additional carts in
> some models are (as some tell) totally not needed.

The red in my i9950 is running out twice as fast as the green.
It's probably only used 5-10% as much as the photo colours though.

As for the dots, I can make them out using genuine ink and Canon Photo Paper pro
in my i9950 which has 2 picolitre droplets. I'd love to see the output from a 1
picolitre printer.
--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 5:20:32 AM

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

Ink pooling?
Never. I've only experienced instant drying with a beautiful glossy surface
when using both Ilford SGP and Canon PPP. I have done many photos of scanned
coins where color and very sharp detail is a high priority and they are
consistently printed beautifully using the iP5000 and Ilford SGP.


"Ben Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:gg1dqc.r68.ln@192.168.11.2...
> coinman1 wrote:
>> I use Ilford Gallerie Smooth Gloss Paper for my extensive photo work.
>> Ilford Gallerie SGP is less expensive than Canon's Photo Paper Pro and
>> produces equivalent output, IMO.
>> As I said earlier, the output of the 4-color iP5000 is indistinguishable
>> from the 6-color output of my i960, both of which I still use daily.
>> There may be cases where having an 8-color printer would produce a
>> measurably superior output to the 1 picoliter iP5000 and perhaps justify
>> the initial higher cost and additional consumables utilized but I have
>> not experienced the need as yet.
>>
>
> Have you noticed the ink pooling at all? I have that problem with the
> Ilford paper in my i9950.
>
> --
> --
> Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia
>
> My Digital World:
> Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
> Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
> Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
> Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.
>
> Disclaimer:
> Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
> relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as
> neither
> given nor endorsed by it.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 7:01:00 PM

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

"Ben Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:gg1dqc.r68.ln@192.168.11.2...
> coinman1 wrote:
>> I use Ilford Gallerie Smooth Gloss Paper for my extensive photo work.
>> Ilford Gallerie SGP is less expensive than Canon's Photo Paper Pro and
>> produces equivalent output, IMO.
>> As I said earlier, the output of the 4-color iP5000 is indistinguishable
>> from the 6-color output of my i960, both of which I still use daily.
>> There may be cases where having an 8-color printer would produce a
>> measurably superior output to the 1 picoliter iP5000 and perhaps justify
>> the initial higher cost and additional consumables utilized but I have
>> not experienced the need as yet.
>>
>
> Have you noticed the ink pooling at all? I have that problem with the
> Ilford paper in my i9950.
>
> --
> --
> Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia
>
> My Digital World:
> Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
> Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
> Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
> Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.
>
> Disclaimer:
> Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
> relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as
> neither
> given nor endorsed by it.

I had the same problem using Ilford paper but a friend suggested that I use
the "Matte" paper setting which I did and I have had the most glorious
results using Ilford Smooth Gloss and Smooth Pearl papers. My printer is a
Canon Pixma IP4000. Give it a try!

Regards Ben Olsen
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 8:05:38 PM

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

Ben Thomas wrote:
> coinman1 wrote:
>
>> I use Ilford Gallerie Smooth Gloss Paper for my extensive photo work.
>> Ilford Gallerie SGP is less expensive than Canon's Photo Paper Pro and
>> produces equivalent output, IMO.
>> As I said earlier, the output of the 4-color iP5000 is
>> indistinguishable from the 6-color output of my i960, both of which I
>> still use daily.
>> There may be cases where having an 8-color printer would produce a
>> measurably superior output to the 1 picoliter iP5000 and perhaps
>> justify the initial higher cost and additional consumables utilized
>> but I have not experienced the need as yet.
>>
>
> Have you noticed the ink pooling at all? I have that problem with the
> Ilford paper in my i9950.
>
What Profile are you using with which of the Ilford papers? If you are
not using profiles, what settings?

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 8:46:38 PM

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

Do you think that a printer with a 1 picoliter droplet is more prone to
clogging?

Ben Thomas wrote:

> SleeperMan wrote:
>
>> Well, i can only tell that this PP101, as "the best canon's paper"
>> really rocks...It's just impossible to see any dots, so you really
>> can't tell that pic was actually printed. Previously i used some
>> noname paper and results were good, but i could always see dots if
>> looking close...
>> I tried some semi-glossy everyday photo paper, however this is
>> useless...ink is not absorbing at all etc.
>> I've read old reviews about i950 and supposely it's head didn't last
>> as long as those with less carts. Especially those red and green
>> additional carts in some models are (as some tell) totally not needed.
>
>
> The red in my i9950 is running out twice as fast as the green.
> It's probably only used 5-10% as much as the photo colours though.
>
> As for the dots, I can make them out using genuine ink and Canon Photo
> Paper pro in my i9950 which has 2 picolitre droplets. I'd love to see
> the output from a 1 picolitre printer.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 10:20:37 PM

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

The product has no stock number on the 100 sheet box. It is described on the
box as follows:
Ilford Gallerie Smooth Gloss Paper
8.5"x11"
2880dpi
216x279mm
250 gsm

I use the recommended settings for the i-Series Canon Printers:
Media Type: Photo Paper Pro
Print Quality: Fine
-15 Yellow
+5 Intensity



>>>
>>
>> Have you noticed the ink pooling at all? I have that problem with the
>> Ilford paper in my i9950.
>>
> What Profile are you using with which of the Ilford papers? If you are not
> using profiles, what settings?
>
> --
> John McWilliams
!