IP4000 vs. IP5000 -- final thoughts

[Guest]

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

Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000 tends
to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary -- fortunately,
the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to tell
which photo came from which printer. I imagine that few people have actually
had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2, I'd
love to hear your thoughts.

On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior. It lays the ink down
beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the IP5000.

But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
rebate plus a $20 gift card.

On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust black
or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
clean or nuanced as the IP5000.

 

[davy]

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

Now we're getting somewhere.
I've been undecided for ages on the ip4000/ip5000 and too leant
towards the 5000. I can well understand having to adjust for
'greyscale', more so with other brands of paper and inks before doing
any serious printing.

I have seen pictures and have pictures from Canon showing the ip5000
to be a lot lighter in brightness, and yet again what proved the
matter for me was a pair if identical pictures, one on a 4000 and the
other from a 5000 both exactly the same, the brightness, contrast the
saturation etc, the one from the 5000 showing much finer detail as
would be expected from the 1pl head.

David Stone of PC mag don't exactly help with his statement "the
ip5000 is one step lower in photo quality", I had the feeling that he
did not have it set on the highest setting. The clue I think is the
time he said it took to print a 10 x 8, I don't know if you could
confirm this?

I quote from PC Mag Review on the ip5000
"On our business-applications suite, the iP5000 almost matched the
record-holding iP4000, with a total time of 16 minutes 9 seconds, a
difference of just 21 seconds spread out over 13 tests. On our photo
suite, however, it was significantly slower, averaging about 1 minute
longer for both 4- by 6-inch photos, at 2:06 each, and 8- by 10-inch
photos, at 3:38 each", UNQUOTE.


If this isn't the case its most certainly stuck with othepeople.

It seemed odd to me that a 1pl head was one step lower, I noted that
on the Japan web site they do not do a ip5000 or ip5100, note the
models there are ip3100, ip4100 for example.

It also seemed odd that the finer 1pl head was not used in the upper
models and I had the impression that the ip5000 was a 'test bed' for
1pl heads.

Davy

 

[Guest]

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

On 5/24/05 4:34 PM, in article 4293b9f8$1_3@alt.athenanews.com, "Davy"
<davecoe@blueyonder.co-dot-uk.no-spam.invalid> wrote:

> Now we're getting somewhere.
> I've been undecided for ages on the ip4000/ip5000 and too leant
> towards the 5000. I can well understand having to adjust for
> 'greyscale', more so with other brands of paper and inks before doing
> any serious printing.
>
> I have seen pictures and have pictures from Canon showing the ip5000
> to be a lot lighter in brightness, and yet again what proved the
> matter for me was a pair if identical pictures, one on a 4000 and the
> other from a 5000 both exactly the same, the brightness, contrast the
> saturation etc, the one from the 5000 showing much finer detail as
> would be expected from the 1pl head.

I agree with you. The 5000 shows a *tiny* bit of better detail. Like you,
I'm surprised that no one else has remarked on this. As for the PC Mag
review, what can I say? They're not infallible, and the difference really is
marginal. When you're testing a bunch of printers, this kind of nuanced
difference can sometime go astray. I always take reviews with a grain of
salt (have to see with my own eyes). Also, I wasn't testing for speed, just
photo and graphic quality. To repeat what I've just written in a reply to
measkite: to my eyes, after much testing and comparing, photo output on the
5000 appears to be marginally better; graphic output vastly superior. I've
had both printers on my desk side by side. Neither printer is perfect. Both
print much darker than they should; the 4000 has a magenta cast, the 5000
has a yellow cast. The driver allows you to adjust color output, thank
goodenss, and once that's done, you can have yourself some gorgeous photos.
In short, the 4000 is nice but (marginally) not as nice as the 5000. It's
going back.

My hunch is that the 5000 is the better product but that Canon ditched it
because it proved to costly to pursue. This is a personal conjecture based
on nothing concrete, but it's what I suspect. I find it strange that they
gave so little play to the 1pl head issue, to begin with. But if they'd
already decided they weren't going to run with it, then it would make sense
not to draw attention to it. My point is that just because they ditched it
does not mean it's not the superior product (vide Sony Betamax). Whatever
the reason (someone also mentioned the possibility that the Ipl head causes
more clogging), Canon ditched this technology and we're left to wonder.


>
> David Stone of PC mag don't exactly help with his statement "the
> ip5000 is one step lower in photo quality", I had the feeling that he
> did not have it set on the highest setting. The clue I think is the
> time he said it took to print a 10 x 8, I don't know if you could
> confirm this?
>
> I quote from PC Mag Review on the ip5000
> "On our business-applications suite, the iP5000 almost matched the
> record-holding iP4000, with a total time of 16 minutes 9 seconds, a
> difference of just 21 seconds spread out over 13 tests. On our photo
> suite, however, it was significantly slower, averaging about 1 minute
> longer for both 4- by 6-inch photos, at 2:06 each, and 8- by 10-inch
> photos, at 3:38 each", UNQUOTE.
>
>
> If this isn't the case its most certainly stuck with othepeople.
>
> It seemed odd to me that a 1pl head was one step lower, I noted that
> on the Japan web site they do not do a ip5000 or ip5100, note the
> models there are ip3100, ip4100 for example.
>
> It also seemed odd that the finer 1pl head was not used in the upper
> models and I had the impression that the ip5000 was a 'test bed' for
> 1pl heads.
>
> Davy
>

 

[Guest]

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

Davy wrote:
> Now we're getting somewhere.
> I've been undecided for ages on the ip4000/ip5000 and too leant
> towards the 5000. I can well understand having to adjust for
> 'greyscale', more so with other brands of paper and inks before doing
> any serious printing.
>
> I have seen pictures and have pictures from Canon showing the ip5000
> to be a lot lighter in brightness, and yet again what proved the
> matter for me was a pair if identical pictures, one on a 4000 and the
> other from a 5000 both exactly the same, the brightness, contrast the
> saturation etc, the one from the 5000 showing much finer detail as
> would be expected from the 1pl head.
>
> David Stone of PC mag don't exactly help with his statement "the
> ip5000 is one step lower in photo quality", I had the feeling that he
> did not have it set on the highest setting. The clue I think is the
> time he said it took to print a 10 x 8, I don't know if you could
> confirm this?
>
> I quote from PC Mag Review on the ip5000
> "On our business-applications suite, the iP5000 almost matched the
> record-holding iP4000, with a total time of 16 minutes 9 seconds, a
> difference of just 21 seconds spread out over 13 tests. On our photo
> suite, however, it was significantly slower, averaging about 1 minute
> longer for both 4- by 6-inch photos, at 2:06 each, and 8- by 10-inch
> photos, at 3:38 each", UNQUOTE.
>
>

If PC Mag says they printed a photo in 2:06 then that's no where near
the printer's maximum resolution.

At the highest resolution setting (9600 dpi) on the iP5000 - photo paper
pro and Custom Quality set to 1, Fine - it should take between 3:45 and
4:00 for a 4x6 print on the iP5000. I just printed one, with a border,
and it took 3:45.

-Taliesyn

 

[Andy]

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

"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
news:BEB8EA40.39ED%sfeliz@nada.com...
> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
> tends
> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
> fortunately,
> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
> tell
> which photo came from which printer. I imagine that few people have
> actually
> had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
> way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2,
> I'd
> love to hear your thoughts.
>
> On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior. It lays the ink down
> beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the
> IP5000.
>
> But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
> IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
> rebate plus a $20 gift card.
>
> On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
> printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust
> black
> or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
> you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
> clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
>


I took the plunge and bought the ip4000 today. I certainly wouldnt have
bought a printer it if it didnt have the cd/dvd printing though, its nice
to see us brits have something kit better than you americans for a change

 

[Guest]

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

"Davy" <davecoe@blueyonder.co-dot-uk.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:4293b9f8$1_3@alt.athenanews.com...
[..]

> I have seen pictures and have pictures from Canon showing the ip5000
> to be a lot lighter in brightness, and yet again what proved the
> matter for me was a pair if identical pictures, one on a 4000 and the
> other from a 5000 both exactly the same, the brightness, contrast the
> saturation etc, the one from the 5000 showing much finer detail as
> would be expected from the 1pl head.


Is the same ink isn't it? That should make photos viewed *from a distance*
about the same.

Its when you get up close that the real differences would show - and with
modern printers that 'close' is distances less than a few inches.. not
something you do everyday, even if your eyesight is up to it.

 

[Guest]

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

"Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1116973771.90279.0@doris.uk.clara.net...
>
> "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
> news:BEB8EA40.39ED%sfeliz@nada.com...
>> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch
>> of
>> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
>> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
>> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
>> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
>> tends
>> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but
>> tends
>> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
>> fortunately,
>> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
>> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
>> tell
>> which photo came from which printer. I imagine that few people have
>> actually
>> had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
>> way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2,
>> I'd
>> love to hear your thoughts.
>>
>> On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior. It lays the ink down
>> beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the
>> IP5000.
>>
>> But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then
>> the
>> IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
>> rebate plus a $20 gift card.
>>
>> On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
>> printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust
>> black
>> or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
>> you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
>> clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
>>
>
>
> I took the plunge and bought the ip4000 today. I certainly wouldnt have
> bought a printer it if it didnt have the cd/dvd printing though, its nice
> to see us brits have something kit better than you americans for a change
>
>
>
>

Hey Andy, where'd you get yours from?

--
Derek

 

[Guest]

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

Sarah Feliz wrote:

>Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
>photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
>contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
>printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
>the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000 tends
>to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
>toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary -- fortunately,
>the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
>output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to tell
>which photo came from which printer.
>

And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
"marginally" was too close to call.

>I imagine that few people have actually
>had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
>way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2, I'd
>love to hear your thoughts.
>
>On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior.
>
And again that is what PC MAG claimed. And that is what I attempted to
convey to the readers except that the members of the AfterMarket Club
like to disagree with me. They do not like nor do they foster
independent thought unless it happens to fall within their gospel as
diectated by the Reverend, his holiness Burt.

>It lays the ink down
>beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the IP5000.
>
>But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
>IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
>rebate plus a $20 gift card.
>
>

Frys had them on sale with a $30 instant rebate and a $20.00 Canon
rebate. One reader claimed that Frys had a sale on them for $79.95 but
I think he/she meant the IP3000.


What was said here is what I have been saying for a long time.

>On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
>printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust black
>or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
>you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
>clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
<measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>
>> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
>> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
>> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
>> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
>> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000 tends
>> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
>> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary -- fortunately,
>> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
>> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to tell
>> which photo came from which printer.
>>
>
> And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
> marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
> and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
> "marginally" was too close to call.

You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally, I'm
sure). I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better in
the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require adjustments,
albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the same
in quality.

If pushed, however, I would say that it's the IP5000 that's marginally
better in photo output. I found that it has a clarity of detail that's a
smidgeon better than the IP4000. Can it be that it has a different
sharpening algorithm? I don't know. I just see what I see. I chose not to go
into this in my earlier posting because this kind of marginal, really
marginal difference, just drives me crazy. It's so marginal that I kept
asking myself: do I see it or don't I? But picture after picture I kept
asking myself the same question.

Let me also say that I checked on my printouts with a loop, and again, the
difference is marginal. Output is very much affected by the black color
slider. Ideally one shouldn't have to fiddle with that, but with both
printers you do (as opposed to the HP8450, for ex, which requires no such
adjustments). If your pictures come out too dark, too magenta, too yellow,
go into the color controls in the driver and adjust upwards or downwards on
each color until you get the result you want. I choose to do this here
rather than in Photoshop because I don't want the picture on the screen to
become skewed. I'm just compensating for the fact that the printer prints
darker and off-color from what I see on the screen. Once you learn the
printer's quirks (maybe you can always leave the setting to minus-x black,
minus-x yellow, plus-x magenta), your pictures will improve a great deal.

On this note: I wonder whether there are profiles for this printer? Anyone?

To conclude: With the IP5000's clearly superior graphic output added to the
equation, the answer for me was: this is the one.


>
>> I imagine that few people have actually
>> had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
>> way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2, I'd
>> love to hear your thoughts.
>>
>> On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior.
>>
> And again that is what PC MAG claimed. And that is what I attempted to
> convey to the readers except that the members of the AfterMarket Club
> like to disagree with me. They do not like nor do they foster
> independent thought unless it happens to fall within their gospel as
> diectated by the Reverend, his holiness Burt.
>
>> It lays the ink down
>> beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the IP5000.
>>
>> But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
>> IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
>> rebate plus a $20 gift card.
>>
>>
>
> Frys had them on sale with a $30 instant rebate and a $20.00 Canon
> rebate. One reader claimed that Frys had a sale on them for $79.95 but
> I think he/she meant the IP3000.
>
>
> What was said here is what I have been saying for a long time.
>
>> On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
>> printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust black
>> or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
>> you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
>> clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
>>
>>
>>
>>

 

[Guest]

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

Andy wrote:

>"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
>news:BEB8EA40.39ED%sfeliz@nada.com...
>
>
>>Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
>>photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
>>contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
>>printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
>>the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
>>tends
>>to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
>>toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
>>fortunately,
>>the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
>>output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
>>tell
>>which photo came from which printer. I imagine that few people have
>>actually
>>had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
>>way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2,
>>I'd
>>love to hear your thoughts.
>>
>>On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior. It lays the ink down
>>beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the
>>IP5000.
>>
>>But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
>>IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
>>rebate plus a $20 gift card.
>>
>>On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
>>printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust
>>black
>>or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
>>you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
>>clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>I took the plunge and bought the ip4000 today. I certainly wouldnt have
>bought a printer it if it didnt have the cd/dvd printing though, its nice
>to see us brits have something kit better than you americans for a change
>
>

You already have cute girls.

>
>
>
>

 

[Andy]

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

>
> Hey Andy, where'd you get yours from?
>
> --
> Derek


I was going to order from comet.co.uk like you but delivery wasn't until
next
wednesday but I ideally wanted it for this bank holiday weekend, there was
also no store pickup available,
so i printed off the websheet £89.99 and went down to comet to try and get
them to price match. I was hopefully they would be able to for the sake
of £10 but apparently its company policy not to price match a website, even
their own.
So i took the print out next door into pcworld and showed it to the guy
there. They have similar sort of no website pricematching policy but seem
to have a way round it.
He looked on pcworlds website where it is also £89.99, he then ordered it
for me with free store pickup. so basically i walked out with it there and
then for £89.99.

The fact that most people now research on the web before going to the store
to buy it means most people are going to get a shock when they get to
the store and see a higher price. These companies really need to get on top
of the website price matching problem against their own sites, comet lost a
sale today.

So i'm now a proud ip4000 owner . Just set it all up but not printed
anything yet. Have you got yours yet?

 

[Guest]

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

Great results with OEM ink and Costco/Kirkland Glossy Paper. ????May be
Ilford Gallerie Smooth Glossy.

Andy wrote:

>>Hey Andy, where'd you get yours from?
>>
>>--
>>Derek
>>
>>
>
>
>I was going to order from comet.co.uk like you but delivery wasn't until
>next
>wednesday but I ideally wanted it for this bank holiday weekend, there was
>also no store pickup available,
>so i printed off the websheet £89.99 and went down to comet to try and get
>them to price match. I was hopefully they would be able to for the sake
>of £10 but apparently its company policy not to price match a website, even
>their own.
>So i took the print out next door into pcworld and showed it to the guy
>there. They have similar sort of no website pricematching policy but seem
>to have a way round it.
>He looked on pcworlds website where it is also £89.99, he then ordered it
>for me with free store pickup. so basically i walked out with it there and
>then for £89.99.
>
>The fact that most people now research on the web before going to the store
>to buy it means most people are going to get a shock when they get to
>the store and see a higher price. These companies really need to get on top
>of the website price matching problem against their own sites, comet lost a
>sale today.
>
>So i'm now a proud ip4000 owner . Just set it all up but not printed
>anything yet. Have you got yours yet?
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Davy wrote:

>Now we're getting somewhere.
>I've been undecided for ages on the ip4000/ip5000 and too leant
>towards the 5000. I can well understand having to adjust for
>'greyscale', more so with other brands of paper and inks before doing
>any serious printing.
>
>

I have been telling ya all this for months.

>I have seen pictures and have pictures from Canon showing the ip5000
>to be a lot lighter in brightness, and yet again what proved the
>matter for me was a pair if identical pictures, one on a 4000 and the
>other from a 5000 both exactly the same, the brightness, contrast the
>saturation etc, the one from the 5000 showing much finer detail as
>would be expected from the 1pl head.
>
>

Yes and that depends on the particular photo. It is not the case for
all of them.

>David Stone of PC mag don't exactly help with his statement "the
>ip5000 is one step lower in photo quality", I had the feeling that he
>did not have it set on the highest setting. The clue I think is the
>time he said it took to print a 10 x 8, I don't know if you could
>confirm this?
>
>I quote from PC Mag Review on the ip5000
>"On our business-applications suite, the iP5000 almost matched the
>record-holding iP4000, with a total time of 16 minutes 9 seconds, a
>difference of just 21 seconds spread out over 13 tests. On our photo
>suite, however, it was significantly slower, averaging about 1 minute
>longer for both 4- by 6-inch photos, at 2:06 each, and 8- by 10-inch
>photos, at 3:38 each", UNQUOTE.
>
>
>If this isn't the case its most certainly stuck with othepeople.
>
>It seemed odd to me that a 1pl head was one step lower, I noted that
>on the Japan web site they do not do a ip5000 or ip5100, note the
>models there are ip3100, ip4100 for example.
>
>It also seemed odd that the finer 1pl head was not used in the upper
>models and I had the impression that the ip5000 was a 'test bed' for
>1pl heads.
>
>Davy
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>
>>Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
>>photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
>>contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
>>printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
>>the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
>>tends
>>to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
>>toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
>>fortunately,
>>the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
>>output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
>>tell
>>which photo came from which printer.
>
> And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
> marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
> and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
> "marginally" was too close to call.
>
>>I imagine that few people have actually
>>had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
>>way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2,
>>I'd
>>love to hear your thoughts.
>>
>>On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior.
> And again that is what PC MAG claimed. And that is what I attempted to
> convey to the readers except that the members of the AfterMarket Club like
> to disagree with me.

Really? from what I've seen of your postings your seem to think that anyone
who uses 3rd party inks is a moron, that anyone who doesn't have a Canon
printer is an idiot and that your IP4000 is better in every respect than ALL
other printers on the market. Oh, and anyone who doesn't agree with your
point of view gets subjected to a torrent of childish abuse and name calling


[..]

> What was said here is what I have been saying for a long time.
>>On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
>>printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust
>>black
>>or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
>>you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
>>clean or nuanced as the IP5000.


So - you agree that the HP8450 is a better photo printer than the Canon(s)?
Hmmm... make your mind up will you.

 

[Guest]

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

"Andy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1116977082.95025.0@doris.uk.clara.net...
>
>>
>> Hey Andy, where'd you get yours from?
>>
>> --
>> Derek
>
>
> I was going to order from comet.co.uk like you but delivery wasn't until
> next
> wednesday but I ideally wanted it for this bank holiday weekend, there was
> also no store pickup available,
> so i printed off the websheet £89.99 and went down to comet to try and get
> them to price match. I was hopefully they would be able to for the
> sake
> of £10 but apparently its company policy not to price match a website,
> even
> their own.
> So i took the print out next door into pcworld and showed it to the guy
> there. They have similar sort of no website pricematching policy but
> seem
> to have a way round it.
> He looked on pcworlds website where it is also £89.99, he then ordered it
> for me with free store pickup. so basically i walked out with it there and
> then for £89.99.
>
> The fact that most people now research on the web before going to the
> store
> to buy it means most people are going to get a shock when they get to
> the store and see a higher price. These companies really need to get on
> top
> of the website price matching problem against their own sites, comet lost
> a sale today.
>
> So i'm now a proud ip4000 owner . Just set it all up but not printed
> anything yet. Have you got yours yet?
>
>
>
>

No. It's due Thursday. I wasn't in a big rush, my S630 still prints.

--
Derek

 

[BURT]

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

"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
news:BEB91C33.3A0F%sfeliz@nada.com...
>
>
>
> On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
> OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch
>>> of
>>> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
>>> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
>>> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different
>>> is
>>> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
>>> tends
>>> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but
>>> tends
>>> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
>>> fortunately,
>>> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
>>> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
>>> tell
>>> which photo came from which printer.
>>>
>>
>> And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
>> marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
>> and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
>> "marginally" was too close to call.
>
> You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
> what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally, I'm
> sure). I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better
> in
> the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require adjustments,
> albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the same
> in quality.

Sarah - I've responded to your posts before. Welcome to the world of
absolutely intentional misrepresentation, otherwise known as Measekite.
Every chance he gets, he twists or quotes out of context to support his
bias. Your report about side-by-side printing on the IP4000 and IP5000 is
much welcomed. Measekite has been justifying his IP4000 (undoubtedly a good
printer) by quoting the PC mag review, ad nauseum, but he hasn't mentioned
and therefore probably hasn't done his own comparison as you did. I did
look at several of my Canon I960 prints under an 8x jewelers loupe and many
areas looked like continuous tone areas and not the typical "half-tone" dot
appearance of inkjet printers.

I use the I960, a six color printer in the I series and did some
experimenting with papers and inks. I found oversaturation, especially in
the Magenta range, with the photo paper pro setting. After reading all of
the Neal Slade info and participating in the Nifty-Stuff forum I reset my
color to manual instead of automatic, reduced the intensity settings in
some selected pics to -4 to -6, and found that the best setting with Costco
Kirkland glossy photo paper was Glossy Photo Paper. The higher I went in
their presumed paper quality, the more saturated the prints became. I also
printed the same pics side-by-side on Epson Glossy paper, Epson Premium
Glossy paper, and the Costco glossy paper. The Costco paper was as good as
any of the others. Quite nice. As I recall, however, you were looking for
fine arts paper and are probably less interested in glossy photo paper. You
probably know that different papers require either color adjustments or,
preferably, different color profiles. In the Nifty Stuff forum you can find
some interesting info on color profiles if you have not already learned
about this issue.

As to inks, I have also done side-by-side print comparisons with OEM ink and
OEM carts refilled with MIS inks and there is considerably less difference
than you found between the IP4000 and IP5000 color shifts. To my eye they
looked virtually the same. Reset your browser to sort by sender and look
for posts by Taliesyn. He has used Formulabs inks in his IP5000 with no
problems. I'm not suggesting that you use them - I am only passing on this
info in case you are interested. Be prepared for Measekite's tirade
following this post about the evils of third party inks and vendors.
>
(snip)

 

[Guest]

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

Ivor Floppy wrote:

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
>>>photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
>>>contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
>>>printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
>>>the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
>>>tends
>>>to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
>>>toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
>>>fortunately,
>>>the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
>>>output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
>>>tell
>>>which photo came from which printer.
>>>
>>>
>>And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
>>marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
>>and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
>>"marginally" was too close to call.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I imagine that few people have actually
>>>had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
>>>way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2,
>>>I'd
>>>love to hear your thoughts.
>>>
>>>On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior.
>>>
>>>
>>And again that is what PC MAG claimed. And that is what I attempted to
>>convey to the readers except that the members of the AfterMarket Club like
>>to disagree with me.
>>
>>
>
>Really? from what I've seen of your postings your seem to think that anyone
>who uses 3rd party inks is a moron, that anyone who doesn't have a Canon
>printer is an idiot and that your IP4000 is better in every respect than ALL
>other printers on the market. Oh, and anyone who doesn't agree with your
>point of view gets subjected to a torrent of childish abuse and name calling
>
>
>[..]
>
>
>
>>What was said here is what I have been saying for a long time.
>>
>>
>>>On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
>>>printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust
>>>black
>>>or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
>>>you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
>>>clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>So - you agree that the HP8450 is a better photo printer than the Canon(s)?
>Hmmm... make your mind up will you.
>
>

I have. You are an idiot!

>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Sarah Feliz wrote:

>
>On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
>OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
><measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
>>>photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
>>>contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
>>>printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
>>>the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000 tends
>>>to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
>>>toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary -- fortunately,
>>>the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
>>>output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to tell
>>>which photo came from which printer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
>>marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
>>and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
>>"marginally" was too close to call.
>>
>>
>
>You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
>what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally, I'm
>sure).
>

What I meant is even though the results are to close to call someone at
PDC Mag felt that was some however small and however maginal diference.
That is what I meant and based on that and the fact that I use my HP
more for business I kept my IP4000 and am happy with it.

>I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better in
>the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require adjustments,
>albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the same
>in quality.
>

I would imagine so. I have not seen the same photo printed side by side.

>
>
>If pushed, however, I would say that it's the IP5000 that's marginally
>better in photo output. I found that it has a clarity of detail that's a
>smidgeon better than the IP4000. Can it be that it has a different
>sharpening algorithm? I don't know. I just see what I see. I chose not to go
>into this in my earlier posting because this kind of marginal, really
>marginal difference, just drives me crazy. It's so marginal that I kept
>asking myself: do I see it or don't I?
>

Maybe that is what the reviewer at PC Mag felt but he just made a call.

>But picture after picture I kept
>asking myself the same question.
>
>Let me also say that I checked on my printouts with a loop, and again, the
>difference is marginal. Output is very much affected by the black color
>slider. Ideally one shouldn't have to fiddle with that, but with both
>printers you do
>

I do not fiddle with those controls. Using OEM ink I am happy with my
results.

>(as opposed to the HP8450, for ex, which requires no such
>adjustments). If your pictures come out too dark, too magenta, too yellow,
>go into the color controls in the driver and adjust upwards or downwards on
>each color until you get the result you want. I choose to do this here
>rather than in Photoshop because I don't want the picture on the screen to
>become skewed. I'm just compensating for the fact that the printer prints
>darker and off-color from what I see on the screen. Once you learn the
>printer's quirks (maybe you can always leave the setting to minus-x black,
>minus-x yellow, plus-x magenta), your pictures will improve a great deal.
>
>On this note: I wonder whether there are profiles for this printer? Anyone?
>
>
>To conclude: With the IP5000's clearly superior graphic output added to the
>equation, the answer for me was: this is the one.
>
>
>
>
>>>I imagine that few people have actually
>>>had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
>>>way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2, I'd
>>>love to hear your thoughts.
>>>
>>>On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>And again that is what PC MAG claimed. And that is what I attempted to
>>convey to the readers except that the members of the AfterMarket Club
>>like to disagree with me. They do not like nor do they foster
>>independent thought unless it happens to fall within their gospel as
>>diectated by the Reverend, his holiness Burt.
>>
>>
>>
>>>It lays the ink down
>>>beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the IP5000.
>>>
>>>But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
>>>IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
>>>rebate plus a $20 gift card.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Frys had them on sale with a $30 instant rebate and a $20.00 Canon
>>rebate. One reader claimed that Frys had a sale on them for $79.95 but
>>I think he/she meant the IP3000.
>>
>>
>>What was said here is what I have been saying for a long time.
>>
>>
>>
>>>On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
>>>printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust black
>>>or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
>>>you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
>>>clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Sarah Feliz wrote:

>
>On 5/24/05 4:34 PM, in article 4293b9f8$1_3@alt.athenanews.com, "Davy"
><davecoe@blueyonder.co-dot-uk.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Now we're getting somewhere.
>>I've been undecided for ages on the ip4000/ip5000 and too leant
>>towards the 5000. I can well understand having to adjust for
>>'greyscale', more so with other brands of paper and inks before doing
>>any serious printing.
>>
>>I have seen pictures and have pictures from Canon showing the ip5000
>>to be a lot lighter in brightness, and yet again what proved the
>>matter for me was a pair if identical pictures, one on a 4000 and the
>>other from a 5000 both exactly the same, the brightness, contrast the
>>saturation etc, the one from the 5000 showing much finer detail as
>>would be expected from the 1pl head.
>>
>>
>
>I agree with you. The 5000 shows a *tiny* bit of better detail. Like you,
>I'm surprised that no one else has remarked on this. As for the PC Mag
>review, what can I say? They're not infallible, and the difference really is
>marginal. When you're testing a bunch of printers, this kind of nuanced
>difference can sometime go astray. I always take reviews with a grain of
>salt (have to see with my own eyes). Also, I wasn't testing for speed, just
>photo and graphic quality. To repeat what I've just written in a reply to
>measkite: to my eyes, after much testing and comparing, photo output on the
>5000 appears to be marginally better; graphic output vastly superior. I've
>had both printers on my desk side by side. Neither printer is perfect. Both
>print much darker than they should; the 4000 has a magenta cast, the 5000
>has a yellow cast. The driver allows you to adjust color output, thank
>goodenss, and once that's done, you can have yourself some gorgeous photos.
>In short, the 4000 is nice but (marginally) not as nice as the 5000. It's
>going back.
>
>My hunch is that the 5000 is the better product but that Canon ditched it
>because it proved to costly to pursue.
>

I find it hard to believe that it costs Canon more than $50.00 to
produce that printer over the IP4000. There must be another reason.

>This is a personal conjecture based
>on nothing concrete, but it's what I suspect. I find it strange that they
>gave so little play to the 1pl head issue, to begin with.
>

To further conjecture maybe they are coming out with a new formulation
of ink that just does not work as well using a 1pl droplet size.

>But if they'd
>already decided they weren't going to run with it, then it would make sense
>not to draw attention to it. My point is that just because they ditched it
>does not mean it's not the superior product (vide Sony Betamax). Whatever
>the reason (someone also mentioned the possibility that the Ipl head causes
>more clogging), Canon ditched this technology and we're left to wonder.
>
>
>
>
>>David Stone of PC mag don't exactly help with his statement "the
>>ip5000 is one step lower in photo quality", I had the feeling that he
>>did not have it set on the highest setting. The clue I think is the
>>time he said it took to print a 10 x 8, I don't know if you could
>>confirm this?
>>
>>I quote from PC Mag Review on the ip5000
>>"On our business-applications suite, the iP5000 almost matched the
>>record-holding iP4000, with a total time of 16 minutes 9 seconds, a
>>difference of just 21 seconds spread out over 13 tests. On our photo
>>suite, however, it was significantly slower, averaging about 1 minute
>>longer for both 4- by 6-inch photos, at 2:06 each, and 8- by 10-inch
>>photos, at 3:38 each", UNQUOTE.
>>
>>
>>If this isn't the case its most certainly stuck with othepeople.
>>
>>It seemed odd to me that a 1pl head was one step lower, I noted that
>>on the Japan web site they do not do a ip5000 or ip5100, note the
>>models there are ip3100, ip4100 for example.
>>
>>It also seemed odd that the finer 1pl head was not used in the upper
>>models and I had the impression that the ip5000 was a 'test bed' for
>>1pl heads.
>>
>>Davy
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

 

[davy]

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

> Taliesynwrote:

> I quote from PC Mag Review on the ip5000
> "On our business-applications suite, the iP5000 almost matched the
> record-holding iP4000, with a total time of 16 minutes 9 seconds, a
> difference of just 21 seconds spread out over 13 tests. On our
photo
> suite, however, it was significantly slower, averaging about 1
minute
> longer for both 4- by 6-inch photos, at 2:06 each, and 8- by
10-inch
> photos, at 3:38 each", UNQUOTE.
>
>
>
If PC Mag says they printed a photo in 2:06 then that's no where near
the printer's maximum resolution.

At the highest resolution setting (9600 dpi) on the iP5000 - photo
paper
pro and Custom Quality set to 1, Fine - it should take between 3:45
and
4:00 for a 4x6 print on the iP5000. I just printed one, with a
border,
and it took 3:45.


Davy say's
Thanks Taliesyn this proves the point that PC Mag got it wrong but
they ignored the fact and did not check when I took it up with the
very David Stone.

And this is mis-leadiing if this is the case by PC Mag and also this
is the very reason that the "one step lower in photo quality than
the ip4000" has 'STUCK' which goes to show you can't take the reviews
as gospel.

It seems rather strange that neither Steve's Digicams nor photo-i are
willing to do a side by side - is this to do with Canon I wonder?

Davy

 

[Guest]

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

On 5/24/05 7:04 PM, in article
U2Rke.20965$J12.14495@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
<sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:

>
> "Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
> news:BEB91C33.3A0F%sfeliz@nada.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
>> OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
>> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch
>>>> of
>>>> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
>>>> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
>>>> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different
>>>> is
>>>> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
>>>> tends
>>>> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but
>>>> tends
>>>> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
>>>> fortunately,
>>>> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
>>>> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
>>>> tell
>>>> which photo came from which printer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
>>> marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
>>> and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
>>> "marginally" was too close to call.
>>
>> You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
>> what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally, I'm
>> sure). I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better
>> in
>> the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require adjustments,
>> albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the same
>> in quality.
>
> Sarah - I've responded to your posts before. Welcome to the world of
> absolutely intentional misrepresentation, otherwise known as Measekite.
> Every chance he gets, he twists or quotes out of context to support his
> bias. Your report about side-by-side printing on the IP4000 and IP5000 is
> much welcomed. Measekite has been justifying his IP4000 (undoubtedly a good
> printer) by quoting the PC mag review, ad nauseum, but he hasn't mentioned
> and therefore probably hasn't done his own comparison as you did. I did
> look at several of my Canon I960 prints under an 8x jewelers loupe and many
> areas looked like continuous tone areas and not the typical "half-tone" dot
> appearance of inkjet printers.

Hmm...when I looked under a loupe all photos appeared to have "dots" --4000,
5000, the HP 8450, they all had these tiny dots (scary to look at but not
visible to the naked eye). When you say "many areas looked like continuous
tone" on the i960--what do you mean? No dots at all? Really? That's amazing.
Maybe I should reconsider my choice???
>
> I use the I960, a six color printer in the I series and did some
> experimenting with papers and inks. I found oversaturation, especially in
> the Magenta range, with the photo paper pro setting. After reading all of
> the Neal Slade info and participating in the Nifty-Stuff forum I reset my
> color to manual instead of automatic, reduced the intensity settings in
> some selected pics to -4 to -6, and found that the best setting with Costco
> Kirkland glossy photo paper was Glossy Photo Paper. The higher I went in
> their presumed paper quality, the more saturated the prints became. I also
> printed the same pics side-by-side on Epson Glossy paper, Epson Premium
> Glossy paper, and the Costco glossy paper. The Costco paper was as good as
> any of the others. Quite nice. As I recall, however, you were looking for
> fine arts paper and are probably less interested in glossy photo paper. You
> probably know that different papers require either color adjustments or,
> preferably, different color profiles. In the Nifty Stuff forum you can find
> some interesting info on color profiles if you have not already learned
> about this issue.

Thanks for all this info. Where exactly did you see recommendations to
reduce intensity from -4 to -6? Or is that a formulation you've come up
with? I didn't reduce intensity, it seemed to make more sense to reduce the
black, even up to -10. I wonder what the difference is between reducing
intensity and reducing black. I think when you tweak individual colors you
have more control (but also more work, of course). When you reduce
intensity, it applies that deduction across the board (which may be
desirable sometimes but not always).
>
> As to inks, I have also done side-by-side print comparisons with OEM ink and
> OEM carts refilled with MIS inks and there is considerably less difference
> than you found between the IP4000 and IP5000 color shifts. To my eye they
> looked virtually the same. Reset your browser to sort by sender and look
> for posts by Taliesyn. He has used Formulabs inks in his IP5000 with no
> problems. I'm not suggesting that you use them - I am only passing on this
> info in case you are interested. Be prepared for Measekite's tirade
> following this post about the evils of third party inks and vendors.
>>
> (snip)
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

On 5/24/05 10:35 PM, in article
m8Uke.1351$rY6.789@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
<measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
>> OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
>> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
>>>> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
>>>> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
>>>> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
>>>> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000 tends
>>>> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
>>>> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary -- fortunately,
>>>> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
>>>> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to tell
>>>> which photo came from which printer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
>>> marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
>>> and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
>>> "marginally" was too close to call.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
>> what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally, I'm
>> sure).
>>
>
> What I meant is even though the results are to close to call someone at
> PDC Mag felt that was some however small and however maginal diference.
> That is what I meant and based on that and the fact that I use my HP
> more for business I kept my IP4000 and am happy with it.

Good for you. But that's no reason to push the 4000 above and beyond
anything else.
>
>> I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better in
>> the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require adjustments,
>> albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the same
>> in quality.
>>
>
> I would imagine so. I have not seen the same photo printed side by side.

Since you haven't seen the same photo printed side by side and you haven't
conducted tests on both printers, you can't really judge. You certainly
can't make the call. Another reason why your pushing the 4000 as the best
printer of all time is unjustified.

>
>>
>>
>> If pushed, however, I would say that it's the IP5000 that's marginally
>> better in photo output. I found that it has a clarity of detail that's a
>> smidgeon better than the IP4000. Can it be that it has a different
>> sharpening algorithm? I don't know. I just see what I see. I chose not to go
>> into this in my earlier posting because this kind of marginal, really
>> marginal difference, just drives me crazy. It's so marginal that I kept
>> asking myself: do I see it or don't I?
>>
>
> Maybe that is what the reviewer at PC Mag felt but he just made a call.
>
>> But picture after picture I kept
>> asking myself the same question.
>>
>> Let me also say that I checked on my printouts with a loop, and again, the
>> difference is marginal. Output is very much affected by the black color
>> slider. Ideally one shouldn't have to fiddle with that, but with both
>> printers you do
>>
>
> I do not fiddle with those controls. Using OEM ink I am happy with my
> results.
>
>> (as opposed to the HP8450, for ex, which requires no such
>> adjustments). If your pictures come out too dark, too magenta, too yellow,
>> go into the color controls in the driver and adjust upwards or downwards on
>> each color until you get the result you want. I choose to do this here
>> rather than in Photoshop because I don't want the picture on the screen to
>> become skewed. I'm just compensating for the fact that the printer prints
>> darker and off-color from what I see on the screen. Once you learn the
>> printer's quirks (maybe you can always leave the setting to minus-x black,
>> minus-x yellow, plus-x magenta), your pictures will improve a great deal.
>>
>> On this note: I wonder whether there are profiles for this printer? Anyone?
>>
>>
>> To conclude: With the IP5000's clearly superior graphic output added to the
>> equation, the answer for me was: this is the one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I imagine that few people have actually
>>>> had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
>>>> way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2,
>>>> I'd
>>>> love to hear your thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And again that is what PC MAG claimed. And that is what I attempted to
>>> convey to the readers except that the members of the AfterMarket Club
>>> like to disagree with me. They do not like nor do they foster
>>> independent thought unless it happens to fall within their gospel as
>>> diectated by the Reverend, his holiness Burt.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> It lays the ink down
>>>> beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the IP5000.
>>>>
>>>> But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
>>>> IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
>>>> rebate plus a $20 gift card.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Frys had them on sale with a $30 instant rebate and a $20.00 Canon
>>> rebate. One reader claimed that Frys had a sale on them for $79.95 but
>>> I think he/she meant the IP3000.
>>>
>>>
>>> What was said here is what I have been saying for a long time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
>>>> printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust
>>>> black
>>>> or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
>>>> you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
>>>> clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>

 

[Guest]

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

On 5/24/05 10:35 PM, in article
m8Uke.1351$rY6.789@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
<measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
>> OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
>> <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
>>>> photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
>>>> contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
>>>> printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
>>>> the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000 tends
>>>> to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
>>>> toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary -- fortunately,
>>>> the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
>>>> output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to tell
>>>> which photo came from which printer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
>>> marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
>>> and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
>>> "marginally" was too close to call.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
>> what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally, I'm
>> sure).
>>
>
> What I meant is even though the results are to close to call someone at
> PDC Mag felt that was some however small and however maginal diference.
> That is what I meant and based on that and the fact that I use my HP
> more for business I kept my IP4000 and am happy with it.
>
>> I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better in
>> the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require adjustments,
>> albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the same
>> in quality.
>>
>
> I would imagine so. I have not seen the same photo printed side by side.
>
>>
>>
>> If pushed, however, I would say that it's the IP5000 that's marginally
>> better in photo output. I found that it has a clarity of detail that's a
>> smidgeon better than the IP4000. Can it be that it has a different
>> sharpening algorithm? I don't know. I just see what I see. I chose not to go
>> into this in my earlier posting because this kind of marginal, really
>> marginal difference, just drives me crazy. It's so marginal that I kept
>> asking myself: do I see it or don't I?
>>
>
> Maybe that is what the reviewer at PC Mag felt but he just made a call.
>
>> But picture after picture I kept
>> asking myself the same question.
>>
>> Let me also say that I checked on my printouts with a loop, and again, the
>> difference is marginal. Output is very much affected by the black color
>> slider. Ideally one shouldn't have to fiddle with that, but with both
>> printers you do
>>
>
> I do not fiddle with those controls. Using OEM ink I am happy with my
> results.

Because you haven't done comparison printing, you may not realize that the
Canons print too dark and oversaturated. But they do. And yes, they do so
with OEM inks (what else would I be using on a printer I'm testing and
planning to return if not the inks that come in the box with the printer?).
It's not a matter of "fiddling with the controls" as if this were an option
one can take or leave. Without the possibility of making these adjustments,
these Canon printers (any printer, actually) would be worthless. Only rarely
do they produce photos that do not require toning down the black, reducing
the yellows and magentas. This is something that various photo professional
reviews point out. Once these adjustments are made, you have the potential
for a great photo. But not before.


>
>> (as opposed to the HP8450, for ex, which requires no such
>> adjustments). If your pictures come out too dark, too magenta, too yellow,
>> go into the color controls in the driver and adjust upwards or downwards on
>> each color until you get the result you want. I choose to do this here
>> rather than in Photoshop because I don't want the picture on the screen to
>> become skewed. I'm just compensating for the fact that the printer prints
>> darker and off-color from what I see on the screen. Once you learn the
>> printer's quirks (maybe you can always leave the setting to minus-x black,
>> minus-x yellow, plus-x magenta), your pictures will improve a great deal.
>>
>> On this note: I wonder whether there are profiles for this printer? Anyone?
>>
>>
>> To conclude: With the IP5000's clearly superior graphic output added to the
>> equation, the answer for me was: this is the one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I imagine that few people have actually
>>>> had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
>>>> way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2,
>>>> I'd
>>>> love to hear your thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And again that is what PC MAG claimed. And that is what I attempted to
>>> convey to the readers except that the members of the AfterMarket Club
>>> like to disagree with me. They do not like nor do they foster
>>> independent thought unless it happens to fall within their gospel as
>>> diectated by the Reverend, his holiness Burt.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> It lays the ink down
>>>> beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the IP5000.
>>>>
>>>> But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
>>>> IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
>>>> rebate plus a $20 gift card.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Frys had them on sale with a $30 instant rebate and a $20.00 Canon
>>> rebate. One reader claimed that Frys had a sale on them for $79.95 but
>>> I think he/she meant the IP3000.
>>>
>>>
>>> What was said here is what I have been saying for a long time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
>>>> printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust
>>>> black
>>>> or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
>>>> you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
>>>> clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>

 

[Guest]

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

Sarah Feliz wrote:

>On 5/24/05 7:04 PM, in article
>U2Rke.20965$J12.14495@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "Burt"
><sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Sarah Feliz" <sfeliz@nada.com> wrote in message
>>news:BEB91C33.3A0F%sfeliz@nada.com...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
>>>OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
>>><measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch
>>>>>of
>>>>>photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
>>>>>contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
>>>>>printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different
>>>>>is
>>>>>the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000
>>>>>tends
>>>>>to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but
>>>>>tends
>>>>>toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary --
>>>>>fortunately,
>>>>>the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
>>>>>output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to
>>>>>tell
>>>>>which photo came from which printer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
>>>>marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
>>>>and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
>>>>"marginally" was too close to call.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
>>>what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally, I'm
>>>sure). I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better
>>>in
>>>the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require adjustments,
>>>albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the same
>>>in quality.
>>>
>>>
>>Sarah - I've responded to your posts before. Welcome to the world of
>>absolutely intentional misrepresentation, otherwise known as Measekite.
>>Every chance he gets, he twists or quotes out of context to support his
>>bias. Your report about side-by-side printing on the IP4000 and IP5000 is
>>much welcomed. Measekite has been justifying his IP4000 (undoubtedly a good
>>printer) by quoting the PC mag review, ad nauseum, but he hasn't mentioned
>>and therefore probably hasn't done his own comparison as you did. I did
>>look at several of my Canon I960 prints under an 8x jewelers loupe and many
>>areas looked like continuous tone areas and not the typical "half-tone" dot
>>appearance of inkjet printers.
>>
>>
>
>Hmm...when I looked under a loupe all photos appeared to have "dots" --4000,
>5000, the HP 8450, they all had these tiny dots (scary to look at but not
>visible to the naked eye). When you say "many areas looked like continuous
>tone" on the i960--what do you mean? No dots at all? Really? That's amazing.
>Maybe I should reconsider my choice???
>
>

And I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. To be serious, the
discontinued i960 is a very good printer that is able to produce very
subtle tones if the photograph originally had them. However, there are
downsides. It costs more to run because of additional cartridges. It
does much worse on business documents and graphics as per both PC Mag
and Canon Factory Rep. It does not print full duplex and does not have
twin paper feeds. It is also slower. The light dye load inks that it
uses (Lt Magenta and Lt Cyan) have a greater tendency to fade. It does
not have a pigmented black for text.

Its replacement, the Canon IP6000D, is also a 6 color printer. When
tested by PC Mag it proved slower, not as good on photos and much worse
on business documents than the IP4000.

>>I use the I960, a six color printer in the I series and did some
>>experimenting with papers and inks. I found oversaturation, especially in
>>the Magenta range, with the photo paper pro setting. After reading all of
>>the Neal Slade info and participating in the Nifty-Stuff forum I reset my
>>color to manual instead of automatic, reduced the intensity settings in
>>some selected pics to -4 to -6, and found that the best setting with Costco
>>Kirkland glossy photo paper was Glossy Photo Paper. The higher I went in
>>their presumed paper quality, the more saturated the prints became. I also
>>printed the same pics side-by-side on Epson Glossy paper, Epson Premium
>>Glossy paper, and the Costco glossy paper. The Costco paper was as good as
>>any of the others. Quite nice. As I recall, however, you were looking for
>>fine arts paper and are probably less interested in glossy photo paper. You
>>probably know that different papers require either color adjustments or,
>>preferably, different color profiles. In the Nifty Stuff forum you can find
>>some interesting info on color profiles if you have not already learned
>>about this issue.
>>
>>
>
>Thanks for all this info. Where exactly did you see recommendations to
>reduce intensity from -4 to -6? Or is that a formulation you've come up
>with?
>
Burt came up with that based on his tastes on skin tones of his grand kids.

>I didn't reduce intensity, it seemed to make more sense to reduce the
>black, even up to -10. I wonder what the difference is between reducing
>intensity and reducing black. I think when you tweak individual colors you
>have more control (but also more work, of course). When you reduce
>intensity, it applies that deduction across the board (which may be
>desirable sometimes but not always).
>
>

I believe photoshop allows you to reduce intensity of a selected portion
of a photo if need be.

>>As to inks, I have also done side-by-side print comparisons with OEM ink and
>>OEM carts refilled with MIS inks and there is considerably less difference
>>than you found between the IP4000 and IP5000 color shifts.
>>

He has not seen your differences in color shifts between the IP4000 and
the IP5000 so how would he know.

>>To my eye they
>>looked virtually the same. Reset your browser to sort by sender and look
>>for posts by Taliesyn. He has used Formulabs inks in his IP5000 with no
>>problems. I'm not suggesting that you use them - I am only passing on this
>>info in case you are interested. Be prepared for Measekite's tirade
>>following this post about the evils of third party inks and vendors.
>>
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Sarah Feliz wrote:

>On 5/24/05 10:35 PM, in article
>m8Uke.1351$rY6.789@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
><measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 5/24/05 5:09 PM, in article
>>>OmPke.1252$rY6.836@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "measekite"
>>><measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sarah Feliz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Okay, so I've actually lined up the 2 side by side and compared a bunch of
>>>>>photos and graphic files generated by the 2 printers. Here's my take:
>>>>>contrary to what's been said here, the IP4000 is *not* a better photo
>>>>>printer. It's in fact the same quality as the IP5000. What's different is
>>>>>the color calibration, and both printers tend to oversaturate. IP4000 tends
>>>>>to print way darker and towards magenta; IP5000 also prints dark but tends
>>>>>toward the yellow. In both cases, adjustments are necessary -- fortunately,
>>>>>the (identical) drivers provide quick and easy ways of adjusting color
>>>>>output and intensity. Once these elements are dealt with, it's hard to tell
>>>>>which photo came from which printer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>And that is probably why the eyes at PC MAG felt that the IP4000 was
>>>>marginally better for photos; a subjective judgement call on their part
>>>>and also why I did not exchange mine for an IP5000. I thought
>>>>"marginally" was too close to call.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You say "that is why" PC Mag decided the IP4000 was better. "That" being
>>>what exactly? You're misrepresenting what I've said (unintentionally, I'm
>>>sure).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>What I meant is even though the results are to close to call someone at
>>PDC Mag felt that was some however small and however maginal diference.
>>That is what I meant and based on that and the fact that I use my HP
>>more for business I kept my IP4000 and am happy with it.
>>
>>
>
>Good for you. But that's no reason to push the 4000 above and beyond
>anything else.
>
>

Everyone has an opinion. I recommend Canon over others and I recommend
the IP4000 over the IP5000 for all purposes except where the printload
is weighted more toward the business side. It is also $40.00 cheaper.
The probability of a 1pl printhead clogging more over a 2pl head is
still unknown. There are not enough of them in the field for a long
enough period of time. It also concerns me why Canon did not promote a
1pl printhead in the newer more expensive IP8500.

>>>I didn't point to any attribute that would make the IP4000 better in
>>>the photo dept. What I said was that *both* printers require adjustments,
>>>albeit different adjustments. In other words, they're pretty much the same
>>>in quality.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I would imagine so. I have not seen the same photo printed side by side.
>>
>>
>
>Since you haven't seen the same photo printed side by side and you haven't
>conducted tests on both printers, you can't really judge. You certainly
>can't make the call. Another reason why your pushing the 4000 as the best
>printer of all time is unjustified.
>
>
>
>>>If pushed, however, I would say that it's the IP5000 that's marginally
>>>better in photo output. I found that it has a clarity of detail that's a
>>>smidgeon better than the IP4000. Can it be that it has a different
>>>sharpening algorithm? I don't know. I just see what I see. I chose not to go
>>>into this in my earlier posting because this kind of marginal, really
>>>marginal difference, just drives me crazy. It's so marginal that I kept
>>>asking myself: do I see it or don't I?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Maybe that is what the reviewer at PC Mag felt but he just made a call.
>>
>>
>>
>>>But picture after picture I kept
>>>asking myself the same question.
>>>
>>>Let me also say that I checked on my printouts with a loop, and again, the
>>>difference is marginal. Output is very much affected by the black color
>>>slider. Ideally one shouldn't have to fiddle with that, but with both
>>>printers you do
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I do not fiddle with those controls. Using OEM ink I am happy with my
>>results.
>>
>>
>>
>>>(as opposed to the HP8450, for ex, which requires no such
>>>adjustments). If your pictures come out too dark, too magenta, too yellow,
>>>go into the color controls in the driver and adjust upwards or downwards on
>>>each color until you get the result you want. I choose to do this here
>>>rather than in Photoshop because I don't want the picture on the screen to
>>>become skewed. I'm just compensating for the fact that the printer prints
>>>darker and off-color from what I see on the screen. Once you learn the
>>>printer's quirks (maybe you can always leave the setting to minus-x black,
>>>minus-x yellow, plus-x magenta), your pictures will improve a great deal.
>>>
>>>On this note: I wonder whether there are profiles for this printer? Anyone?
>>>
>>>
>>>To conclude: With the IP5000's clearly superior graphic output added to the
>>>equation, the answer for me was: this is the one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I imagine that few people have actually
>>>>>had the opportunity to examine both printers at the same time and have no
>>>>>way of knowing this. If anyone else has had a chance to compare these 2,
>>>>>I'd
>>>>>love to hear your thoughts.
>>>>>
>>>>>On the graphic side, the IP5000 is clearly superior.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>And again that is what PC MAG claimed. And that is what I attempted to
>>>>convey to the readers except that the members of the AfterMarket Club
>>>>like to disagree with me. They do not like nor do they foster
>>>>independent thought unless it happens to fall within their gospel as
>>>>diectated by the Reverend, his holiness Burt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It lays the ink down
>>>>>beautifully. So, after much agonizing, I've chosen to stay with the IP5000.
>>>>>
>>>>>But if all you're going to print are photos with occasional text, then the
>>>>>IP4000 is the better deal. Best Buys is selling them for $149 with a $20
>>>>>rebate plus a $20 gift card.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Frys had them on sale with a $30 instant rebate and a $20.00 Canon
>>>>rebate. One reader claimed that Frys had a sale on them for $79.95 but
>>>>I think he/she meant the IP3000.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What was said here is what I have been saying for a long time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On a side note: for strictly photos, the HP8450 out performs both Canon
>>>>>printers; it produces the best photos of all (almost no need to adjust
>>>>>black
>>>>>or saturation levels). But the paper tray is fiddly and unyielding, if
>>>>>you're using odd sizes, and the graphic output, although okay, isn't as
>>>>>clean or nuanced as the IP5000.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>