Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

time to buy : Canon 4000 or 5000 ?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 3:39:55 AM

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

Appreciate any comments you may have on the virtues/merits/capabilities of the
Pixma 4000 vs. Pixma 5000.

I will print about 20 8x10 inch prints per month at highest color
resolution/quality, print less 100 pages of text per month. Higher quality color
and sharpness are more important than the business uses.

I am in Thailand where the 5000 goes for about US $120 more than the 4000, but
that price difference is not a "sticking point" for me.

thanks !

J. Cod
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 11:22:57 PM

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

The IP5000 is substantially better for business documents but marginally
inferior on photos to the IP4000. The smaller droplet size may clean to
a clogged print head but the printer is so new there are no reports to
that effect. Based on what you said the IP4000 is the best bet.

J Cod wrote:

>Appreciate any comments you may have on the virtues/merits/capabilities of the
>Pixma 4000 vs. Pixma 5000.
>
>I will print about 20 8x10 inch prints per month at highest color
>resolution/quality, print less 100 pages of text per month. Higher quality color
>and sharpness are more important than the business uses.
>
>I am in Thailand where the 5000 goes for about US $120 more than the 4000, but
>that price difference is not a "sticking point" for me.
>
>thanks !
>
>J. Cod
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 12:13:59 PM

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

Taliesyn wrote:

> I didn't bust my head over which printer - the iP5000 was only $40
> more than the iP4000. For my printing needs I'm always looking for
> the highest resolution. I'm very happy with it. And I use Chinese
> cartridges filled with U.S. Formulabs ink. No problems, had it since
> Christmas.
>
> -Taliesyn


I haven't switched to the IP5000 yet, and am still working my faithful
Canon i860. But I want to say that I too use the Arrow Chinese
Cartridges filled with U.S. Formulabs ink from alotofthings.com and
their Ebay store at:

<http://stores.ebay.com/ALOT-OF-THINGS_Canon-Cartridges_...;

where the Canon cartridges are about $2.05 each. I've been using them
for about a year now and have had no problems with them whatsover,
including clogging or fading. Their colors are so close to the OEM
Canon cartridges that it takes a very long hard look to discern any
differences, which are extremely small--at $2 per cartridge versus $12
OEM!

I just printed (with Qimage printing program) 3 copies of an 8x10
picture of my number one son with former Senator George McGovern at a
San Francisco book signing, and the prints came out absolutely
gorgeous. Colors, including black, are bright and vivid, and skin tones
are warm and realistic--with cartridges costing $2.05 each!

And every four months I print a hundred copies of my high school class
newsletter on plain paper & classmates respond with amazement at the
quality of text and picture reproduction in it.

I don't use anything but these cartridges any more. See my comparison
review of them at:

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers/message/40...;

Yes, sooner or later I'm pretty sure I'll be getting the IP5000 too. If
Canon comes out with a larger format version of it any time soon, that
will clinch it.

Bill P.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 12:51:00 PM

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

In article measekite says...
> The IP5000 is substantially better for business documents but marginally
> inferior on photos to the IP4000.
>
Can you confirm this from experience or are you just quoting PCMag?
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 12:51:01 PM

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

colinco wrote:

> In article measekite says...
>
>>The IP5000 is substantially better for business documents but marginally
>>inferior on photos to the IP4000.
>>
>
> Can you confirm this from experience or are you just quoting PCMag?


I find the iP5000's smaller (1 pl) drop size produces considerably
sharper graphics and a tad sharper photos than my previous i850 and
i860, and virtually no visible print lines in the photos that the
others were quite good at. It prints at max 9600 resolution compared to
the iP4000's 4800. I have no way to compare photo results with the
lesser iP4000. In my case the iP5000 was only $40 more.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 12:51:01 PM

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

This is a consensus from all of the reviews I read all over.

colinco wrote:

>In article measekite says...
>
>
>>The IP5000 is substantially better for business documents but marginally
>>inferior on photos to the IP4000.
>>
>>
>>
>Can you confirm this from experience or are you just quoting PCMag?
>
>
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:02:38 PM

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

In article Taliesyn says...
> I find the iP5000's smaller (1 pl) drop size produces considerably
> sharper graphics and a tad sharper photos than my previous i850 and
> i860, and virtually no visible print lines in the photos that the
> others were quite good at. It prints at max 9600 resolution compared to
> the iP4000's 4800.
>
That's what I find confusing, some articles refer to the iP5000 using 1
pl droplets only on highest quality with photo paper. Business graphics
and text on plain paper should therefore be same quality as iP4000.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:02:39 PM

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

colinco wrote:
> In article Taliesyn says...
>
>>I find the iP5000's smaller (1 pl) drop size produces considerably
>>sharper graphics and a tad sharper photos than my previous i850 and
>>i860, and virtually no visible print lines in the photos that the
>>others were quite good at. It prints at max 9600 resolution compared to
>>the iP4000's 4800.
>>
>
> That's what I find confusing, some articles refer to the iP5000 using 1
> pl droplets only on highest quality with photo paper. Business graphics
> and text on plain paper should therefore be same quality as iP4000.


The iP5000 will also print 1 pl droplets (9600 resolution) for graphics
and text if I select the "Photo Paper Pro" setting and the quality level
at "1". This is something I do all the time when I make greeting cards
on Epson Glossy Paper. My cards are a mixture of photos, graphics and
text. Everything comes out printed at 9600. The iP4000 can only print
max at 48000 resolution for photos, text and graphics on photo paper and
quality 1 setting.

I believe the iP4000 is merely a minor upgrade of the i850 and the
i860/i865 printers. While the iP5000 takes them to the next quality
level. Whether is succeeds is another matter. I haven't seen side
by side tests. But I was very impressed with how much better it
printed photos and graphics than my previous i850 and i860.

I didn't bust my head over which printer - the iP5000 was only $40
more than the iP4000. For my printing needs I'm always looking for
the highest resolution. I'm very happy with it. And I use Chinese
cartridges filled with U.S. Formulabs ink. No problems, had it since
Christmas.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:02:39 PM

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

Sure would like to get to the bottom of this.

colinco wrote:

>In article Taliesyn says...
>
>
>>I find the iP5000's smaller (1 pl) drop size produces considerably
>>sharper graphics and a tad sharper photos than my previous i850 and
>>i860, and virtually no visible print lines in the photos that the
>>others were quite good at. It prints at max 9600 resolution compared to
>>the iP4000's 4800.
>>
>>
>>
>That's what I find confusing, some articles refer to the iP5000 using 1
>pl droplets only on highest quality with photo paper. Business graphics
>and text on plain paper should therefore be same quality as iP4000.
>
>
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 4:07:12 PM

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

william.pease@verizon.net wrote:
> Taliesyn wrote:
>
>
>>I didn't bust my head over which printer - the iP5000 was only $40
>>more than the iP4000. For my printing needs I'm always looking for
>>the highest resolution. I'm very happy with it. And I use Chinese
>>cartridges filled with U.S. Formulabs ink. No problems, had it since
>>Christmas.
>>
>>-Taliesyn
>
>
>
> I haven't switched to the IP5000 yet, and am still working my faithful
> Canon i860. But I want to say that I too use the Arrow Chinese
> Cartridges filled with U.S. Formulabs ink from alotofthings.com and
> their Ebay store at:
>
> <http://stores.ebay.com/ALOT-OF-THINGS_Canon-Cartridges_...;
>

Alotofthings is "a lot of nothings" ;-) when it comes to shipping to
Canada. They refuse to ship here. So I went to the much nicer people in
Australia to get my Chinese/Formulabs cartridges, boxed as "Vivi Color"
brand. Actually, Formulabs itself was willing to send me gallon size
containers to Canada. However, seeing I don't print phone books and
1000 8x10s on a daily basis, I declined their offer.

> where the Canon cartridges are about $2.05 each. I've been using them
> for about a year now and have had no problems with them whatsover,
> including clogging or fading. Their colors are so close to the OEM
> Canon cartridges that it takes a very long hard look to discern any
> differences, which are extremely small--at $2 per cartridge versus $12
> OEM!

I found that my Chinese/Formulabs cartridges printed somewhat lighter
than Canon's OEM when it came to photos. But that's a minor issue
because I edit/remaster all my photos with a photo editing program.
So in effect it's me who controls contrast and brightness, not the
ink. It's a non issue.

>
> I just printed (with Qimage printing program) 3 copies of an 8x10
> picture of my number one son with former Senator George McGovern at a
> San Francisco book signing, and the prints came out absolutely
> gorgeous. Colors, including black, are bright and vivid, and skin tones
> are warm and realistic--with cartridges costing $2.05 each!

That's great. The money you and I are saving with non Canon inks pays
for our next printers. As you probably read, it's very affordable for me
to run two Canons: one filled with Atlantic Inkjet bulk ink (i860) and
the other (iP5000) with the supposedly better Formulabs inks. My sister
and I have learned from experience that it's a must (at least for us) to
have a second printer when one suddenly and unexpectedly acts up.
Printers are still the weakest link in any computer system.

> And every four months I print a hundred copies of my high school class
> newsletter on plain paper & classmates respond with amazement at the
> quality of text and picture reproduction in it.
>

Both the i860 and iP5000 print wonderfully on Epson Glossy Photo Paper
which I use for my greeting cards (you need an glued insert page as you
can only print on one side), my professional looking CD liners and
inserts. And this great glossy (but not really glossy) paper is quite
durable and very attractive as a booklet cover for the booklets I make
(standard page folded in half). It's not really good for digital photos,
I find. They look more like magazine prints on this paper. But for the
projects I indicated, it can't be beat. Great price at Costco -
something like $30 (Canadian) for 120 sheets.

And a really good digital photo paper is Costco's Kirkland brand. It's
got a hard gloss finish (super, super glossy). 125 full size sheets
for $25 (Canadian).

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 4:52:57 PM

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

Taliesyn wrote:
[...] It's not really good for digital photos,
> I find. They look more like magazine prints on this paper.[...]

You're seeing so-called "pixellation." At the size you're printing the
picture, the pixels have been enlarged, and turn up as little squares.
Glossy paper doesn't absorb ink the same way as matte or plain papers
do. On more absorbent paper, the ink spreads a little more, an blurs the
edges of the pixels.

Sounds to me like your digital photos are made at too low a resolution.
I'm assuming you made them with your digital camera. Make sure your
camera can photograph and store pix at 1200x800 or better. This will
give you 4"x6" non-pixellated prints, but you will still see pixels ate
8"x11", though at "normal viewing distance" of a couple of feet or, they
won't be too annoying. In any case, I advise that you not take pictures
at the lowest resolution in order to maximise the number of pictures you
can take before downloading to the computer. That's false economy IMO.

If the memory card isn't big enough to hold enough pix at the higher
resolution, buy a bigger card. I note that 1GB memory cards now cost
less than $100can. My Canon Sureshot could store about 800 images at its
highest resolution of 2048 x 1536 on this card (it does a mild jpeg
compression automatically.) I actually use a 512MB card, that's big
enough, the equivalent of about 16 rolls of film. :-)

If your camaera doesn't have the capability you apparently want, ditch
it. It's not worth the aggro trying to work around the limitations of a
poor digital camera.

HTH&GL
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 6:57:37 PM

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

Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
> Taliesyn wrote:
> [...] It's not really good for digital photos,
>
>> I find. They look more like magazine prints on this paper.[...]
>
>
> You're seeing so-called "pixellation." At the size you're printing the
> picture, the pixels have been enlarged, and turn up as little squares.
> Glossy paper doesn't absorb ink the same way as matte or plain papers
> do. On more absorbent paper, the ink spreads a little more, an blurs the
> edges of the pixels.
>

No, this is a case of us not communicating correctly. I meant that the
paper that Epson calls "Glossy Photo Paper" just doesn't look nor feel
like traditional roll film paper or the better glossy photo papers
available for digital work. Behind glass, you don't see it. But in your
hand it looks more like a cutout from a magazine. I find the paper
much better suited for CD/DVD liners/inserts, booklet covers and
greeting cards.

I only photograph at my camera's highest resolution. That's the only
way to ensure a sharp, non-grainy image. My camera is an Olympus 3.1 MP,
your basic snap-shooter. One day I had this bright red cardinal sitting
in my apple tree that was in full blossom. An awesome photo was ruined
by the limitations of my 3x camera. I had no telephoto to zoom in much
closer. All I got was a tiny red bird in a tree. Dang!?%

What I'd really like is the Panasonic Lumix 5.0 MP, 12x Optical Zoom.
It's had great reviews. But the price - $799 Canadian is a bit of a
drawback at the moment. I'll wait another year and the price should
drop by, hopefully, by $150. Maybe.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 10:11:54 PM

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

Taliesyn wrote:
[...]>
>
> No, this is a case of us not communicating correctly.

OK, I get it. It's just not high gloss paaper, but like that semi-gloss
slick newsprint.

[...] One day I had this bright red cardinal sitting
> in my apple tree that was in full blossom. An awesome photo was ruined
> by the limitations of my 3x camera. I had no telephoto to zoom in much
> closer. All I got was a tiny red bird in a tree. Dang!?%
>
> What I'd really like is the Panasonic Lumix 5.0 MP, 12x Optical Zoom.
> It's had great reviews. But the price - $799 Canadian is a bit of a
> drawback at the moment. I'll wait another year and the price should
> drop by, hopefully, by $150. Maybe.
>
> -Taliesyn


Me, I want a Nikon. About 2x the price, unfortunately.

:-)
February 9, 2005 7:26:54 PM

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

In article <HQYNd.2658$aW6.2496@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
measekite@yahoo.com says...
> This is a consensus from all of the reviews I read all over.
>
> colinco wrote:
>
> >In article measekite says...
> >
> >
> >>The IP5000 is substantially better for business documents but marginally
> >>inferior on photos to the IP4000.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >Can you confirm this from experience or are you just quoting PCMag?
> >
> >
>

I have the 4000, I had the 5000, and I own 3 I960 printers, as well as an
Epson R200 and an Epson 785 epx.

I returned the 5000 because it simply didn't do ANYTHING better than the 4000
in "real world" conditions.

The IP4000 only uses 4 inks (plus the pigmented black) but it holds its own
against the i960 and the Epson R200.

The truth of the matter is, you can put the prints from EACH side by side on
a table, and you cant tell which one was from the IP4000.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 5:50:34 PM

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

I bought the Pixma 5000
Wish I knew that at the time....Is not one one more Picolitre accurate??
What is a Picolitre anyway???
"Larry" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c744a26ddf147e1989686@news.individual.NET...
> In article <HQYNd.2658$aW6.2496@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> measekite@yahoo.com says...
> > This is a consensus from all of the reviews I read all over.
> >
> > colinco wrote:
> >
> > >In article measekite says...
> > >
> > >
> > >>The IP5000 is substantially better for business documents but
marginally
> > >>inferior on photos to the IP4000.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Can you confirm this from experience or are you just quoting PCMag?
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> I have the 4000, I had the 5000, and I own 3 I960 printers, as well as an
> Epson R200 and an Epson 785 epx.
>
> I returned the 5000 because it simply didn't do ANYTHING better than the
4000
> in "real world" conditions.
>
> The IP4000 only uses 4 inks (plus the pigmented black) but it holds its
own
> against the i960 and the Epson R200.
>
> The truth of the matter is, you can put the prints from EACH side by side
on
> a table, and you cant tell which one was from the IP4000.
>
>
> --
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct.
February 21, 2005 5:38:21 PM

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

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:07:12 -0500, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
wrote:

>Alotofthings is "a lot of nothings" ;-) when it comes to shipping to
>Canada. They refuse to ship here. So I went to the much nicer people in
>Australia to get my Chinese/Formulabs cartridges, boxed as "Vivi Color"
>brand.

Who did you buy from? I've been looking for Formulabs cartridges in
Australia for ages.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 5:38:22 PM

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

blob wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:07:12 -0500, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Alotofthings is "a lot of nothings" ;-) when it comes to shipping to
>>Canada. They refuse to ship here. So I went to the much nicer people in
>>Australia to get my Chinese/Formulabs cartridges, boxed as "Vivi Color"
>>brand.
>
>
> Who did you buy from? I've been looking for Formulabs cartridges in
> Australia for ages.


I got mine in late December, benefiting from an introductory special,
which was considerably lower than the current.

Here's the web page:
http://www.discountcartridges.com.au/

and I'd check their eBay offerings for price difference:
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZdiscount_cartridgesQQh...

I've had no problems with the cartridges, they work great.

-Taliesyn
February 23, 2005 5:54:56 AM

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

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:56:05 -0500, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
wrote:

>blob wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:07:12 -0500, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Alotofthings is "a lot of nothings" ;-) when it comes to shipping to
>>>Canada. They refuse to ship here. So I went to the much nicer people in
>>>Australia to get my Chinese/Formulabs cartridges, boxed as "Vivi Color"
>>>brand.
>>
>>
>> Who did you buy from? I've been looking for Formulabs cartridges in
>> Australia for ages.
>
>
>I got mine in late December, benefiting from an introductory special,
>which was considerably lower than the current.
>
>Here's the web page:
>http://www.discountcartridges.com.au/
>
>and I'd check their eBay offerings for price difference:
>http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZdiscount_cartridgesQQh...
>
>I've had no problems with the cartridges, they work great.
>
>-Taliesyn

Thank you very much!
March 2, 2005 9:25:26 AM

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

my olympus 750 with 10x zoom has been great! I bought it after a
frustrating trip to Alaska with a 3mp 3x zoom that didn't do it for wildlife
photography.

"Taliesyn" <taliesyn4@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:36sndsF55dm2kU1@individual.net...
> Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>> Taliesyn wrote:
>> [...] It's not really good for digital photos,
>>
>>> I find. They look more like magazine prints on this paper.[...]
>>
>>
>> You're seeing so-called "pixellation." At the size you're printing the
>> picture, the pixels have been enlarged, and turn up as little squares.
>> Glossy paper doesn't absorb ink the same way as matte or plain papers do.
>> On more absorbent paper, the ink spreads a little more, an blurs the
>> edges of the pixels.
>>
>
> No, this is a case of us not communicating correctly. I meant that the
> paper that Epson calls "Glossy Photo Paper" just doesn't look nor feel
> like traditional roll film paper or the better glossy photo papers
> available for digital work. Behind glass, you don't see it. But in your
> hand it looks more like a cutout from a magazine. I find the paper
> much better suited for CD/DVD liners/inserts, booklet covers and
> greeting cards.
>
> I only photograph at my camera's highest resolution. That's the only
> way to ensure a sharp, non-grainy image. My camera is an Olympus 3.1 MP,
> your basic snap-shooter. One day I had this bright red cardinal sitting
> in my apple tree that was in full blossom. An awesome photo was ruined
> by the limitations of my 3x camera. I had no telephoto to zoom in much
> closer. All I got was a tiny red bird in a tree. Dang!?%
>
> What I'd really like is the Panasonic Lumix 5.0 MP, 12x Optical Zoom.
> It's had great reviews. But the price - $799 Canadian is a bit of a
> drawback at the moment. I'll wait another year and the price should
> drop by, hopefully, by $150. Maybe.
>
> -Taliesyn
>
!