Canon i560 vs ip4000

[plan9]

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

I'm thinking about getting an ip4000 and have read several reviews,
but cannot find a direct comparison of these two printers. I
currently have a working i560 and use it mostly for photos. Has
anyone directly compared the photo output of an i560 and an ip4000?
Is there a noticeable difference in photo print quality of these two
printers?

Ben

 

[Guest]

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

Plan9 wrote:
> I'm thinking about getting an ip4000 and have read several reviews,
> but cannot find a direct comparison of these two printers. I
> currently have a working i560 and use it mostly for photos. Has
> anyone directly compared the photo output of an i560 and an ip4000?
> Is there a noticeable difference in photo print quality of these two
> printers?
>
> Ben

i560 is more like ip3000, while ip4000 has extra photo black (more like
before i850 or i865). I used to have i550 (560 came as successor) and now
have ip4000. Comparisson...well, i can tell you that difference is visible.
That extra photo black really does it's job. If you use high quality paper,
such Canon's Photo paper pro, print is actually even better than lab photos.
Interesting is that some reviews say ip4000 to be better than ip5000, while
more expensive models are like big difference in price, very little in
quality. So, in my opinion, ip4000 is best choice. other thing is photo
longevity. If you expect photos to last loooong, you better get some printer
which use pigmented ink (none of Canon's ). But they are expensive - like
Epson R800...also print cost is somewhat more expensive. I say you can
always make another photo after first one is faded...

 

[Guest]

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

First compare your i560 to an i860, the next model up at the time you
bought your printer. The ip4000 is the replacement for the i860. It has
a similar print engine (prints faster) has full duplex and 2 paper
feeds. I use the bottom for paper (business documents) and the top for
photos. This is the best value that Canon offers. The i9900 is the
best pure photo printer that Canon offers but it is about 3 times the
price of the IP4000.

Plan9 wrote:

>I'm thinking about getting an ip4000 and have read several reviews,
>but cannot find a direct comparison of these two printers. I
>currently have a working i560 and use it mostly for photos. Has
>anyone directly compared the photo output of an i560 and an ip4000?
>Is there a noticeable difference in photo print quality of these two
>printers?
>
>Ben
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

I agree. PCWorld tests reveal that the more expensive 1 picoliter
droplet IP5000 is substantially better for business documents over the
IP4000 but marginally inferior to the IP4000 for photos. And as I have
said before, the 1 picoliter droplet size may have more of a tendency to
clog but I have not read any reports of that. I think Canon is field
testing that out. The flagship Pixma, the IP8500 uses a 2 picoliter
droplet size like the IP4000.

SleeperMan wrote:

>Plan9 wrote:
>
>
>>I'm thinking about getting an ip4000 and have read several reviews,
>>but cannot find a direct comparison of these two printers. I
>>currently have a working i560 and use it mostly for photos. Has
>>anyone directly compared the photo output of an i560 and an ip4000?
>>Is there a noticeable difference in photo print quality of these two
>>printers?
>>
>>Ben
>>
>>
>
>i560 is more like ip3000, while ip4000 has extra photo black (more like
>before i850 or i865). I used to have i550 (560 came as successor) and now
>have ip4000. Comparisson...well, i can tell you that difference is visible.
>That extra photo black really does it's job. If you use high quality paper,
>such Canon's Photo paper pro, print is actually even better than lab photos.
>Interesting is that some reviews say ip4000 to be better than ip5000, while
>more expensive models are like big difference in price, very little in
>quality. So, in my opinion, ip4000 is best choice. other thing is photo
>longevity. If you expect photos to last loooong, you better get some printer
>which use pigmented ink (none of Canon's ). But they are expensive - like
>Epson R800...also print cost is somewhat more expensive. I say you can
>always make another photo after first one is faded...
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

In article measekite says...
> I agree. PCWorld tests reveal that the more expensive 1 picoliter
> droplet IP5000 is substantially better for business documents over the
> IP4000 but marginally inferior to the IP4000 for photos.
>
Years of writing waffle about the small improvements in each new model
of computer have left PC magazines incapable of determining what
substantially better is. On the settings they probably used the 2
printers should have been the same apart from normal differences between
samples.