New Canon Printers

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

I noticed Canon Japan web site
http://cweb.canon.jp/pixus/lineup/ip4100/
has a new range of printers looking through their list I can not see a
IP5100 to replace the IP5000. it seems that they have dropped their
1pl print heads from the ranges mentioned which seems a little odd,
as one would have expected the 1pl heads be used in the newer
high-end range of printers, wonder why this is..?
29 answers Last reply
More about canon printers
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Davy wrote:
    > I noticed Canon Japan web site
    > http://cweb.canon.jp/pixus/lineup/ip4100/
    > has a new range of printers looking through their list I can not see a
    > IP5100 to replace the IP5000. it seems that they have dropped their
    > 1pl print heads from the ranges mentioned which seems a little odd,
    > as one would have expected the 1pl heads be used in the newer
    > high-end range of printers, wonder why this is..?
    >

    I love my iP5000. The output is a step beyond what my earlier i860
    (today's iP4000) can do. Sure the output takes longer at 9600 dpi, but
    the difference is well worth the wait. Graininess is virtually
    eliminated. I run it on a combination of compatible (BCI-6) and bulk
    BCI-3e) inks.

    I'd hate to go down a level to an iP4100 - unless this new line finally
    included the missing CD/DVD print capability.

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

    Davy wrote:

    >I noticed Canon Japan web site
    >http://cweb.canon.jp/pixus/lineup/ip4100/
    >has a new range of printers looking through their list I can not see a
    >IP5100 to replace the IP5000. it seems that they have dropped their
    >1pl print heads from the ranges mentioned which seems a little odd,
    >as one would have expected the 1pl heads be used in the newer
    >high-end range of printers, wonder why this is..?
    >
    >

    My concern is that they may clog but I have not heard of that happening
    so it is anyones guess.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    measekite wrote:

    >
    >
    > Davy wrote:
    >
    >> I noticed Canon Japan web site http://cweb.canon.jp/pixus/lineup/ip4100/
    >> has a new range of printers looking through their list I can not see a
    >> IP5100 to replace the IP5000. it seems that they have dropped their
    >> 1pl print heads from the ranges mentioned which seems a little odd,
    >> as one would have expected the 1pl heads be used in the newer
    >> high-end range of printers, wonder why this is..?
    >>
    >>
    >
    > My concern is that they may clog but I have not heard of that happening
    > so it is anyones guess.

    With today’s technology the size of the print heads is rather irrelevant
    concerning clogging. What really matters is how it is technically
    implemented and how the ink is prepared for and delivered.
    You're really an uninformed amateur aren't you?
    Get lost.
    Frank
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I understand what Taliesyn is saying and you have gotta agree that a
    finer nozzle will produce a better resolution, vertical resolution
    to be exact - no problem there, and you gotta agree it will take
    slightly longer to print but with finer detail producing a better
    picture.

    I simply was curious as to why the finer 1pl head was not used in the
    latest models on Canon Japan site since they do produce a 'grainfree
    picture'.

    Its gotta be noted from various sites that clogging DOES NOT seem to
    be a issue with the Pixma range compared to other printers, Epson
    seems to be more notorious for this - just look and observe and you
    will see what I mean.

    I find it hard to find any complaints with clogging on the IP5000's
    but why have they been dropped, I would imagine a printer
    manufacturer would 'bloat' about the 1pl print head like Epson
    about their Peizo heads

    When it comes to buying printers its NOT the review's that I take note
    of.

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

    > I find it hard to find any complaints with clogging on the IP5000's
    > but why have they been dropped, I would imagine a printer
    > manufacturer would 'bloat' about the 1pl print head like Epson
    > about their Peizo heads
    >

    It could be commercial reasons. The main selling point of the ip5000 over
    the ip4000 was the 1pl. Perhaps it didn't sell as they'd hoped.
    I have the IP5000 and I am blown away by it. Photo quality is better than
    the ip4000 and no clogging to report.

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

    Taliesyn wrote:

    > Davy wrote:
    >
    >> I noticed Canon Japan web site http://cweb.canon.jp/pixus/lineup/ip4100/
    >> has a new range of printers looking through their list I can not see a
    >> IP5100 to replace the IP5000. it seems that they have dropped their
    >> 1pl print heads from the ranges mentioned which seems a little odd,
    >> as one would have expected the 1pl heads be used in the newer
    >> high-end range of printers, wonder why this is..?
    >>
    >
    > I love my iP5000. The output is a step beyond what my earlier i860
    > (today's iP4000) can do.


    According to reviews at PC Mag, the IP5000 is many steps ahead of the
    IP4000 in business document printing and a small step behind in the
    printing of photos. It is still rated very high and is a giant leap
    ahead of the Epson R300 series.

    > Sure the output takes longer at 9600 dpi, but
    > the difference is well worth the wait. Graininess

    occurs in film photos not in digital photos. Digital photos has noise
    that are similar looking artifacts.

    > is virtually
    > eliminated. I run it on a combination of compatible (BCI-6) and bulk
    > BCI-3e) inks.
    >
    > I'd hate to go down a level to an iP4100 - unless this new line finally
    > included the missing CD/DVD print capability.


    Maybe the IP4100 is the Japanese version of the IP4000.

    >
    > -Taliesyn
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    measekite wrote:
    >
    >
    > Taliesyn wrote:
    >
    >> Davy wrote:
    >>
    >>> I noticed Canon Japan web site http://cweb.canon.jp/pixus/lineup/ip4100/
    >>> has a new range of printers looking through their list I can not see a
    >>> IP5100 to replace the IP5000. it seems that they have dropped their
    >>> 1pl print heads from the ranges mentioned which seems a little odd,
    >>> as one would have expected the 1pl heads be used in the newer
    >>> high-end range of printers, wonder why this is..?
    >>>
    >>
    >> I love my iP5000. The output is a step beyond what my earlier i860
    >> (today's iP4000) can do.
    >
    >
    >
    > According to reviews at PC Mag, the IP5000 is many steps ahead of the
    > IP4000 in business document printing and a small step behind in the
    > printing of photos.

    Bullshit limited reviews done by hacks with no built-in eyes.

    >
    >> Sure the output takes longer at 9600 dpi, but
    >> the difference is well worth the wait. Graininess
    >
    > occurs in film photos not in digital photos. Digital photos has noise
    > that are similar looking artifacts.

    I'm printing with inkjet dots. And in the inkjet printing industry
    graininess is the term used to describe how visible the ink jet dots are
    that comprise the picture. The less visible grain (dots) the better the
    printer and the picture or graphic. The use of the word "graininess"
    may not suit your fancy but it is used by everyone but you. Then again,
    I'm not surprised. Graininess is negligible with the iP5000 compared to
    my i860 or your iP4000, which use the exact same printhead.

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

    measekite wrote:


    >
    >
    > According to reviews at PC Mag, the IP5000 is many steps ahead of the
    > IP4000 in business document printing and a small step behind in the
    > printing of photos. It is still rated very high and is a giant leap
    > ahead of the Epson R300 series.

    Idiot! Is that all you can quote...one article. Only a half wit moron
    would keep posting the same diatribe day after day.
    Get lost.
    Frank
  9. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Davy wrote:

    >I understand what Taliesyn is saying and you have gotta agree that a
    >finer nozzle will produce a better resolution, vertical resolution
    >to be exact - no problem there, and you gotta agree it will take
    >slightly longer to print but with finer detail producing a better
    >picture.
    >
    >I simply was curious as to why the finer 1pl head was not used in the
    >latest models on Canon Japan site since they do produce a 'grainfree
    >picture'.
    >
    >Its gotta be noted from various sites that clogging DOES NOT seem to
    >be a issue with the Pixma range compared to other printers, Epson
    >seems to be more notorious for this - just look and observe and you
    >will see what I mean.
    >
    >

    And Epson printers guzzle ink to keep the problem at a minimum.

    >I find it hard to find any complaints with clogging on the IP5000's
    >but why have they been dropped,
    >

    Has it really been dropped or were they ever offered in the Japanese
    market. My understanding of the IP5000 is that the 1pl droplet size is
    used in business documents not photos but I may be misinformed.

    >I would imagine a printer
    >manufacturer would 'bloat' about the 1pl print head like Epson
    >about their Peizo heads
    >
    >When it comes to buying printers its NOT the review's that I take note
    >of.
    >
    >Davy
    >
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    measekite wrote:


    >
    > Has it really been dropped or were they ever offered in the Japanese
    > market. My understanding of the IP5000 is that the 1pl droplet size is
    > used in business documents not photos but I may be misinformed.
    >

    Only a penciled neck geek or a New Orleans pimp would be dumb enough to
    actually think that 1pl droplet would be better for docs and not for images.
    You are misinformed, misguided but not missed.
    Get a life.
    Frank
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Taliesyn wrote:

    > measekite wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> Taliesyn wrote:
    >>
    >>> Davy wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I noticed Canon Japan web site
    >>>> http://cweb.canon.jp/pixus/lineup/ip4100/
    >>>> has a new range of printers looking through their list I can not see a
    >>>> IP5100 to replace the IP5000. it seems that they have dropped their
    >>>> 1pl print heads from the ranges mentioned which seems a little odd,
    >>>> as one would have expected the 1pl heads be used in the newer
    >>>> high-end range of printers, wonder why this is..?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I love my iP5000. The output is a step beyond what my earlier i860
    >>> (today's iP4000) can do.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> According to reviews at PC Mag, the IP5000 is many steps ahead of the
    >> IP4000 in business document printing and a small step behind in the
    >> printing of photos.
    >
    >
    > Bullshit limited reviews done by hacks with no built-in eyes.


    Maybe but I am curious why they said what they said. We know they were
    correct about the speed.

    >
    >>
    >>> Sure the output takes longer at 9600 dpi, but
    >>> the difference is well worth the wait. Graininess
    >>
    >>
    >> occurs in film photos not in digital photos. Digital photos has
    >> noise that are similar looking artifacts.
    >
    >
    > I'm printing with inkjet dots. And in the inkjet printing industry
    > graininess is the term used to describe how visible the ink jet dots are
    > that comprise the picture. The less visible grain (dots) the better the
    > printer and the picture or graphic. The use of the word "graininess"
    > may not suit your fancy but it is used by everyone but you.


    And the entire Photographic Industry. Remember that the photo industry
    is over 100 years old. The inkjet industry is 10 yearts old and the
    photo inkjet industry is really about 5 years old.

    > Then again,
    > I'm not surprised. Graininess is negligible with the iP5000 compared to
    > my i860 or your iP4000, which use the exact same printhead.


    So when do you think the 1pl droplet size happens?

    >
    > -Taliesyn
  12. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Frank wrote:

    > measekite wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> According to reviews at PC Mag, the IP5000 is many steps ahead of the
    >> IP4000 in business document printing and a small step behind in the
    >> printing of photos. It is still rated very high and is a giant leap
    >> ahead of the Epson R300 series.
    >
    >
    > Idiot! Is that all you can quote...one article. Only a half wit moron
    > would keep posting the same diatribe day after day.
    > Get lost.
    > Frank


    Since you are a shmuck you must alway be talking from inside a pussey.
    I guess that is why everything you say is fishy.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Frank wrote:

    > measekite wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >> Has it really been dropped or were they ever offered in the Japanese
    >> market. My understanding of the IP5000 is that the 1pl droplet size
    >> is used in business documents not photos but I may be misinformed.
    >>
    >
    > Only a penciled neck geek or a New Orleans pimp would be dumb enough
    > to actually think that 1pl droplet would be better for docs and not
    > for images.
    > You are misinformed, misguided but not missed.
    > Get a life.


    > Frank


    And does Frankie Crankie know his ass from a hole in the ground.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > measekitewrote:
    Taliesyn wrote:
    >
    > According to reviews at PC Mag, the IP5000 is many steps ahead of
    the
    > IP4000 in business document printing and a small step behind in the

    > printing of photos. It is still rated very high and is a giant leap

    > ahead of the Epson R300 series.
    >
    >
    > Davy say's
    > Yo... hang on lets read the review proper eh. PC mags reveiw say's
    the IP5000 is one step behind in photo quality and yet better at
    graphics and pastels. Why is this?, its because he aint got it set at
    the best photo setting!
    > The clue, is the time he said it took to
    print the picture, if it was on the best setting the time would be a
    little longer than given ........another good
    reason why I take no notice of reveiws.........!
  15. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > > I love my iP5000. The output is a step beyond what my earlier i860
    > > (today's iP4000) can do.
    >
    >
    > According to reviews at PC Mag, the IP5000 is many steps ahead of the
    > IP4000 in business document printing and a small step behind in the
    > printing of photos. It is still rated very high and is a giant leap
    > ahead of the Epson R300 series.
    >
    That is the only review that claims this (unless you can point me to
    another). Every other review states the 1pl really does make a difference.
    Comparing output from my IP5000 with my friends IP4000 we both agree the
    IP5000 is well ahead.

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

    Patrick wrote:

    >>>I love my iP5000. The output is a step beyond what my earlier i860
    >>>(today's iP4000) can do.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>According to reviews at PC Mag, the IP5000 is many steps ahead of the
    >>IP4000 in business document printing and a small step behind in the
    >>printing of photos. It is still rated very high and is a giant leap
    >>ahead of the Epson R300 series.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >That is the only review that claims this (unless you can point me to
    >another). Every other review states the 1pl really does make a difference.
    >Comparing output from my IP5000 with my friends IP4000 we both agree the
    >IP5000 is well ahead.
    >
    >

    Did you use the exact same photo file and set the printer preferences
    the same way?

    I too was surprised when I read the PC Mag review and wondered how they
    came to that conclusion.

    >--
    >Patrick
    >
    >
    >
    >
  17. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    measekite wrote:
    >
    >
    > Patrick wrote:
    >
    >>>> I love my iP5000. The output is a step beyond what my earlier i860
    >>>> (today's iP4000) can do.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> According to reviews at PC Mag, the IP5000 is many steps ahead of the
    >>> IP4000 in business document printing and a small step behind in the
    >>> printing of photos. It is still rated very high and is a giant leap
    >>> ahead of the Epson R300 series.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >> That is the only review that claims this (unless you can point me to
    >> another). Every other review states the 1pl really does make a
    >> difference.
    >> Comparing output from my IP5000 with my friends IP4000 we both agree the
    >> IP5000 is well ahead.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > Did you use the exact same photo file and set the printer preferences
    > the same way?
    >
    > I too was surprised when I read the PC Mag review and wondered how they
    > came to that conclusion.
    >

    Then stop quoting them because you look absolutely foolish repeating
    something you've had no part in.

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

    measekite wrote:

    >
    >
    > Taliesyn wrote:
    >>>
    >>> According to reviews at PC Mag, the IP5000 is many steps ahead of the
    >>> IP4000 in business document printing and a small step behind in the
    >>> printing of photos.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Bullshit limited reviews done by hacks with no built-in eyes.
    >
    >
    >
    > Maybe but I am curious why they said what they said. We know they were
    > correct about the speed.

    And that is elementary logic, my dear "Watson", because a photo at the
    iP5000's maximum dpi of 9600 will take longer to print than a photo at
    iP4000's maximum dpi of 4800. Higher resolution ALWAYS takes more time.
    The difference between my iP5000 and my i860 is about a minute, and it's
    worth the wait.

    >>
    >> I'm printing with inkjet dots. And in the inkjet printing industry
    >> graininess is the term used to describe how visible the ink jet dots are
    >> that comprise the picture. The less visible grain (dots) the better the
    >> printer and the picture or graphic. The use of the word "graininess"
    >> may not suit your fancy but it is used by everyone but you.
    >
    >
    >
    > And the entire Photographic Industry. Remember that the photo industry
    > is over 100 years old. The inkjet industry is 10 yearts old and the
    > photo inkjet industry is really about 5 years old.

    How do you figure 5 years, there were inkjets long before that. I had my
    first inkjet, an Epson 500 back in 1995. That's 10 right there, and I
    know they existed much before that. And if they existed it's an "industry".

    Anyway, stop changing the subject, it's not about "sacred" history.

    Straight from the makers of our printers (Canon):

    "When printing using the inkjet method, large ink droplets may
    appear as graininess when they hit the paper. Thoroughly removing this
    graininess results in smoother, more natural-looking images."
    ____

    That's all I'm trying to tell you about graininess.

    >
    >> Then again,
    >> I'm not surprised. Graininess is negligible with the iP5000 compared to
    >> my i860 or your iP4000, which use the exact same printhead.
    >
    >
    >
    > So when do you think the 1pl droplet size happens?

    I don't know, suffice to say it definitely appears at highest resolution
    settings. If it also occurs at the lower range, so be it. I haven't run
    tests at lower ranges as I don't see why anyone would need to know this
    insignificant detail.

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

    > >That is the only review that claims this (unless you can point me to
    > >another). Every other review states the 1pl really does make a
    difference.
    > >Comparing output from my IP5000 with my friends IP4000 we both agree the
    > >IP5000 is well ahead.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Did you use the exact same photo file and set the printer preferences
    > the same way?

    Same image, same paper, default driver settings.

    Do you know of any other reviews claiming this?
  20. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Patrick wrote:

    >>>That is the only review that claims this (unless you can point me to
    >>>another). Every other review states the 1pl really does make a
    >>>
    >>>
    >difference.
    >
    >
    >>>Comparing output from my IP5000 with my friends IP4000 we both agree the
    >>>IP5000 is well ahead.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>Did you use the exact same photo file and set the printer preferences
    >>the same way?
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Same image, same paper, default driver settings.
    >
    >Do you know of any other reviews claiming this?
    >
    >

    It is difficult to find truly comparative review setting one printer
    head to head with another. I think that many magazines do not want to
    bite the hand that feeds them to hard.

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

    Taliesyn wrote:

    > measekite wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> Patrick wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> I love my iP5000. The output is a step beyond what my earlier i860
    >>>>> (today's iP4000) can do.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> According to reviews at PC Mag, the IP5000 is many steps ahead of the
    >>>> IP4000 in business document printing and a small step behind in the
    >>>> printing of photos. It is still rated very high and is a giant leap
    >>>> ahead of the Epson R300 series.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> That is the only review that claims this (unless you can point me to
    >>> another). Every other review states the 1pl really does make a
    >>> difference.
    >>> Comparing output from my IP5000 with my friends IP4000 we both agree
    >>> the
    >>> IP5000 is well ahead.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >> Did you use the exact same photo file and set the printer preferences
    >> the same way?
    >>
    >> I too was surprised when I read the PC Mag review and wondered how
    >> they came to that conclusion.
    >>
    >
    > Then stop quoting them because you look absolutely foolish repeating
    > something you've had no part in.
    >
    > -Taliesyn


    When you granduate high school you might find out that some American
    Presidents quotes Abe Lincoln but they had not part in what he did.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    measekite wrote:

    >
    >
    > Taliesyn wrote:
    >
    >> measekite wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Patrick wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>> I love my iP5000. The output is a step beyond what my earlier i860
    >>>>>> (today's iP4000) can do.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> According to reviews at PC Mag, the IP5000 is many steps ahead of the
    >>>>> IP4000 in business document printing and a small step behind in the
    >>>>> printing of photos. It is still rated very high and is a giant leap
    >>>>> ahead of the Epson R300 series.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> That is the only review that claims this (unless you can point me to
    >>>> another). Every other review states the 1pl really does make a
    >>>> difference.
    >>>> Comparing output from my IP5000 with my friends IP4000 we both agree
    >>>> the
    >>>> IP5000 is well ahead.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Did you use the exact same photo file and set the printer preferences
    >>> the same way?
    >>>
    >>> I too was surprised when I read the PC Mag review and wondered how
    >>> they came to that conclusion.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Then stop quoting them because you look absolutely foolish repeating
    >> something you've had no part in.
    >>
    >> -Taliesyn
    >
    >
    >
    > When you granduate high school you might find out that some American
    > Presidents quotes Abe Lincoln but they had not part in what he did.


    Clown, repeating what Abe said - the actual words were written down,
    so we know what he said - is an ass of a different color from quoting
    someone else printer tests. You had no part in those tests, you never
    saw the results, but you quote the reviewer's word as fact.

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

    Taliesyn wrote:

    > measekite wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> Taliesyn wrote:
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> According to reviews at PC Mag, the IP5000 is many steps ahead of
    >>>> the IP4000 in business document printing and a small step behind in
    >>>> the printing of photos.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Bullshit limited reviews done by hacks with no built-in eyes.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Maybe but I am curious why they said what they said. We know they
    >> were correct about the speed.
    >
    >
    > And that is elementary logic, my dear "Watson", because a photo at the
    > iP5000's maximum dpi of 9600 will take longer to print than a photo at
    > iP4000's maximum dpi of 4800. Higher resolution ALWAYS takes more time.
    > The difference between my iP5000 and my i860 is about a minute, and it's
    > worth the wait.
    >
    >>>
    >>> I'm printing with inkjet dots. And in the inkjet printing industry
    >>> graininess is the term used to describe how visible the ink jet dots
    >>> are
    >>> that comprise the picture. The less visible grain (dots) the better the
    >>> printer and the picture or graphic. The use of the word "graininess"
    >>> may not suit your fancy but it is used by everyone but you.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> And the entire Photographic Industry. Remember that the photo
    >> industry is over 100 years old. The inkjet industry is 10 yearts old
    >> and the photo inkjet industry is really about 5 years old.
    >
    >
    > How do you figure 5 years, there were inkjets long before that. I had my
    > first inkjet, an Epson 500 back in 1995. That's 10 right there,


    I am sepaking about color photos of the kind that are better than 1 hour
    developing. I doubt it son.

    > and I know they existed much before that. And if they existed it's an
    > "industry".
    >
    > Anyway, stop changing the subject, it's not about "sacred" history.
    >
    > Straight from the makers of our printers (Canon):
    >
    > "When printing using the inkjet method, large ink droplets may
    > appear as graininess when they hit the paper. Thoroughly removing this
    > graininess results in smoother, more natural-looking images."
    > ____
    >
    > That's all I'm trying to tell you about graininess.
    >
    >>
    >>> Then again,
    >>> I'm not surprised. Graininess is negligible with the iP5000 compared to
    >>> my i860 or your iP4000, which use the exact same printhead.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> So when do you think the 1pl droplet size happens?
    >
    >
    > I don't know, suffice to say it definitely appears at highest
    > resolution settings. If it also occurs at the lower range, so be it. I
    > haven't run
    > tests at lower ranges as I don't see why anyone would need to know this
    > insignificant detail.
    >
    > -Taliesyn
  24. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Taliesyn wrote:

    > measekite wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> Taliesyn wrote:
    >>
    >>> measekite wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Patrick wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> I love my iP5000. The output is a step beyond what my earlier i860
    >>>>>>> (today's iP4000) can do.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> According to reviews at PC Mag, the IP5000 is many steps ahead of
    >>>>>> the
    >>>>>> IP4000 in business document printing and a small step behind in the
    >>>>>> printing of photos. It is still rated very high and is a giant leap
    >>>>>> ahead of the Epson R300 series.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That is the only review that claims this (unless you can point me to
    >>>>> another). Every other review states the 1pl really does make a
    >>>>> difference.
    >>>>> Comparing output from my IP5000 with my friends IP4000 we both
    >>>>> agree the
    >>>>> IP5000 is well ahead.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Did you use the exact same photo file and set the printer
    >>>> preferences the same way?
    >>>>
    >>>> I too was surprised when I read the PC Mag review and wondered how
    >>>> they came to that conclusion.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Then stop quoting them because you look absolutely foolish repeating
    >>> something you've had no part in.
    >>>
    >>> -Taliesyn
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> When you granduate high school you might find out that some American
    >> Presidents quotes Abe Lincoln but they had not part in what he did.
    >
    >
    >
    > Clown, repeating what Abe said - the actual words were written down,
    > so we know what he said - is an ass of a different color from quoting
    > someone else printer tests.


    But we know what the reviewer said and I am referring to what was said.

    > You had no part in those tests, you never
    > saw the results, but you quote the reviewer's word as fact.


    I am quoting what the reviewer said and that is a fact. Read it for
    yourself and he did say what I said. If he made a mistake or his test
    was incomplete it is still a fact that what I quote was his conclusion.

    One thing though, Canon and Epson makes it very difficult to compare
    their models against each other and against themselves. They should
    have a demo in the stores that allow you to print the same file on
    multiple printer using the same paper. If that gets too expensive for
    them then they should sell you a 5 demo pack of Canon Photo Paper Pro
    4x6 for less then 10 cents a sheet so you can test their printers.
    Unfortunately they do not do this.

    >
    > -Taliesyn
  25. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:30ree.1414$X21.313@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
    (snip)_
    > It is difficult to find truly comparative review setting one printer head
    > to head with another. I think that many magazines do not want to bite the
    > hand that feeds them to hard.

    If that is your honest opinion then perhaps that would make you also doubt
    their comments on third party inks, measie.
  26. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Burt wrote:

    >"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >news:30ree.1414$X21.313@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
    >(snip)_
    >
    >
    >>It is difficult to find truly comparative review setting one printer head
    >>to head with another. I think that many magazines do not want to bite the
    >>hand that feeds them to hard.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >If that is your honest opinion then perhaps that would make you also doubt
    >their comments on third party inks, measie.
    >
    >

    Not a chance!

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

    "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:eMBee.1626$X21.778@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >
    > Burt wrote:
    >
    >>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>news:30ree.1414$X21.313@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
    >>(snip)_
    >>
    >>>It is difficult to find truly comparative review setting one printer head
    >>>to head with another. I think that many magazines do not want to bite
    >>>the hand that feeds them to hard.
    >>>
    >>
    >>If that is your honest opinion then perhaps that would make you also doubt
    >>their comments on third party inks, measie.
    >
    > Not a chance!

    So you accept that the reviews may be biased or lack true comparison for
    print heads, but not for inks. Selective blinders. You're a slow learner.
  28. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Burt wrote:

    >"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >news:eMBee.1626$X21.778@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >
    >>Burt wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:30ree.1414$X21.313@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
    >>>(snip)_
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>It is difficult to find truly comparative review setting one printer head
    >>>>to head with another. I think that many magazines do not want to bite
    >>>>the hand that feeds them to hard.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>If that is your honest opinion then perhaps that would make you also doubt
    >>>their comments on third party inks, measie.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>Not a chance!
    >>
    >>
    >
    >So you accept that the reviews may be biased or lack true comparison for
    >print heads, but not for inks. Selective blinders. You're a slow learner.
    >
    >

    I just said that they need more head to head reviews of printers both
    within each mfg and between them. As far as inks go, the stinking
    sleeze ball vendors will not allow them to do that because they will be
    exposed and also have to tell all who is the maker of the ink and they
    are hiding that pretty well.

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

    My, how we do go round in circles, don't we... didn't the graininess
    discussion "dye" (die) out a few months back.

    Grain is indeed a word used in photography to refer to the particles of
    converted silver halides left after development, OR (although actually
    incorrect) the dye clouds left after the silver halides are removed and
    replaced in color films and papers.

    However, that's just in photography. The word Grain, and Graininess
    existed long before photography, as in grains on the beach, as in "this
    bread has a "grainy texture"" as in wheat, rye and oats are grains.

    So, when it comes to inkjet PRINTING, the term graininess can have two
    meanings that I can think of:

    1) print graininess (the visible grainy pattern produced by the
    printhead or drivers and manifested in the ink dots

    2) Film grain, which speaking of a silver halide photo images that was
    reproduced as an inkjet print and in which the dye clouds or silver
    halide structure is reproduced and visible.

    I suppose yet a third could be the surface texture "this inkjet paper is
    a semi-gloss with a grainy surface.

    Because of the potential for confusion, it might be beneficial to refer
    to one as "print grain" and one as "film grain". and then the surface
    texture and finally, where one has gone through the sensor threshold
    floor, or random sensor noise.

    Art


    Taliesyn wrote:

    > measekite wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> Taliesyn wrote:
    >>
    >>> Davy wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I noticed Canon Japan web site
    >>>> http://cweb.canon.jp/pixus/lineup/ip4100/
    >>>> has a new range of printers looking through their list I can not see a
    >>>> IP5100 to replace the IP5000. it seems that they have dropped their
    >>>> 1pl print heads from the ranges mentioned which seems a little odd,
    >>>> as one would have expected the 1pl heads be used in the newer
    >>>> high-end range of printers, wonder why this is..?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I love my iP5000. The output is a step beyond what my earlier i860
    >>> (today's iP4000) can do.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> According to reviews at PC Mag, the IP5000 is many steps ahead of the
    >> IP4000 in business document printing and a small step behind in the
    >> printing of photos.
    >
    >
    > Bullshit limited reviews done by hacks with no built-in eyes.
    >
    >>
    >>> Sure the output takes longer at 9600 dpi, but
    >>> the difference is well worth the wait. Graininess
    >>
    >>
    >> occurs in film photos not in digital photos. Digital photos has noise
    >> that are similar looking artifacts.
    >
    >
    > I'm printing with inkjet dots. And in the inkjet printing industry
    > graininess is the term used to describe how visible the ink jet dots are
    > that comprise the picture. The less visible grain (dots) the better the
    > printer and the picture or graphic. The use of the word "graininess"
    > may not suit your fancy but it is used by everyone but you. Then again,
    > I'm not surprised. Graininess is negligible with the iP5000 compared to
    > my i860 or your iP4000, which use the exact same printhead.
    >
    > -Taliesyn
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Canon Peripherals