Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon 4000 vs Epson R200 for cd printing

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
August 17, 2005 5:13:48 AM

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

What printer gives the best results?
Thanks
Steve
August 17, 2005 2:10:15 PM

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

"steve" <steve@ra2598a.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1705g1l3a78uud8nqdu2n4ultcncee8d78@4ax.com...
> What printer gives the best results?
> Thanks
> Steve

The answer to your question is the ip4000.
Regards
August 17, 2005 5:14:45 PM

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

> SO WHAT. NO CD PRINTING IN USA

I'm in the usa. bought a tray and i'm printing just fine.

> YES THERE IS. NO SOFTWARE AND NO INSTRUCTIONS AND NOT APPROVED


Three points:

1. There is plenty of software. You can download canon's cd-label
print, you can download surething. There are other options too that
support the pxima series but I've not used those like discus.

2. The instructions are approved by canon, the instructinos are
available in the canon ip4000 service manual. The tray is available
from partsnow or ebay.

3. If for some reason you are the sort of person who feels like they
are cheating canon by enabling the CD print feature... order a printer
from europe. http://www.expansys.com/advsearch.asp?srch=all They are
spiffy and even give you a a UK to US plug adapter, but I'd reccomend
using your own plug because it's less bulky. Available at any
electornics store or if you are feeling lazy order QH2-2725-000 from
canon. But if you are lazy and can spend the extra cash to ship a
ip4000 from europe... more power too you.

If you want CD-printing on the pixma printers in America... there is no
excuse not to get it.

> BY CANON CAN BE RESOLVED BY NOT USING FUJI

So what you are saying is you should buy a printer that won't print on
a popular medium type, a good high quality medium type?

Given the fact you have never printed on CDs on the ip4000, this is not
a subject you can speak about with any sort of experence. While Fujis
require an intensity of +15 or so, TDK only require an intensity of +10
or so. You can be lazy an always print CDs set to "dark" and +12
intensity just to be safe.

What's really sad is you are trying to argue someone with direct
experence with the product, both products. A drawback to the ip4000
for printing discs is the fact that you need to at the very least
adjust your intensity for different media types.

> I KNOW YOU CAN BUY THE R200 FOR $50.00

So what you are saying is that the printer you describe as the clog jet
is so cheap you can just buy new ones? That's smart advice.
Related resources
August 17, 2005 5:29:17 PM

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

> in that case you don't have a clue...since R200 also uses dye inks. In fact,
> most of Epson's do.
> Only R800, which is veeeeeeery expensive uses pigmented ink.
> Don't compare apples and oranges...

> BTW...ip4000 is better than ip6000. That photo inks.... are just waste of
> money.

Funny thing is I never said the r200 used pigment ink. But just
because two printers use dye doesn't mean they are using dye of equal
quality.

Try this expiment. Print on a non printable with both the r200 and the
ip4000. Observe how the dye ink for the r200 beads up where the ip4000
ink runs.

Anyhow all i'm saying is the r200 ink is a tad more lightfast than the
ip4000 ink. I noticed this really fast with my cd covers either on
kirkland or epson photo paper. The Canon ink faided in weeks where the
epson ink I didn't notice it faiding at all. On the photo paper
plus... a piece I set on the windowsill... the faiding isn't so bad...
since jun30 it still resembles the image I printed.

Also as some can agree the light inks for the canon fade very quickly.
Assuming the pigments are the same and the formula is the same and
assuming the light inks are just watered down editions of the pigmented
inks... one who claims that the light inks faid too fast must also
admit that the other inks are equaly prone to faiding just because
there is more dye they don't fade to nothing as quickly.

As for the ip6000 being a waste of money... could be. I like the i960
but it's not offered with CD printing.
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 10:02:10 PM

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

With out a doubt. And that is using OEM ink on both.

lala wrote:

>"steve" <steve@ra2598a.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1705g1l3a78uud8nqdu2n4ultcncee8d78@4ax.com...
>
>
>>What printer gives the best results?
>>Thanks
>>Steve
>>
>>
>
>The answer to your question is the ip4000.
>Regards
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 10:11:29 PM

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

zakezuke wrote:
>> IP6000 HAS LOW DYE INK THAT MAY HAVE A TENDENCY TO FADE MORE.
>
> So print longavity your saying one is better off considering an Epson?
> I couldn't agree with you more.
>

in that case you don't have a clue...since R200 also uses dye inks. In fact,
most of Epson's do.
Only R800, which is veeeeeeery expensive uses pigmented ink.
Don't compare apples and oranges...

BTW...ip4000 is better than ip6000. That photo inks.... are just waste of
money.
August 17, 2005 10:11:30 PM

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

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:11:29 +0200, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

>zakezuke wrote:
>>> IP6000 HAS LOW DYE INK THAT MAY HAVE A TENDENCY TO FADE MORE.
>>
>> So print longavity your saying one is better off considering an Epson?
>> I couldn't agree with you more.
>>
>
>in that case you don't have a clue...since R200 also uses dye inks. In fact,
>most of Epson's do.
>Only R800, which is veeeeeeery expensive uses pigmented ink.
>Don't compare apples and oranges...
>
>BTW...ip4000 is better than ip6000. That photo inks.... are just waste of
>money.

Just ordered an IP4000 i already have the epson R200.So i will be able
to compare(hoping the IP40000 is better!)

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 10:11:31 PM

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

MAKE SURE YOU COMPARE BOTH USING OEM INK. YOU WILL FIND THE IP4000 HAS
MORE PIZAAZ AND RICHER COLOR.

steve wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:11:29 +0200, "SleeperMan"
><SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>
>
>>zakezuke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>IP6000 HAS LOW DYE INK THAT MAY HAVE A TENDENCY TO FADE MORE.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>So print longavity your saying one is better off considering an Epson?
>>>I couldn't agree with you more.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>in that case you don't have a clue...since R200 also uses dye inks. In fact,
>>most of Epson's do.
>>Only R800, which is veeeeeeery expensive uses pigmented ink.
>>Don't compare apples and oranges...
>>
>>BTW...ip4000 is better than ip6000. That photo inks.... are just waste of
>>money.
>>
>>
>
>Just ordered an IP4000 i already have the epson R200.So i will be able
>to compare(hoping the IP40000 is better!)
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
August 18, 2005 2:56:20 AM

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

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10:53 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
wrote:

>MAKE SURE YOU COMPARE BOTH USING OEM INK. YOU WILL FIND THE IP4000 HAS
>MORE PIZAAZ AND RICHER COLOR.
>
Will do already ordered some OEM ink for the Canon and i always use
OEM ink for the epson
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 2:08:21 PM

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

Actually, the C80, C66, C82, C84, C86, CX5200, CX 5400, CX 6400 and
others all use pigment colorant inks. The C66 costs well under $100.

Further, even the Epson dye ink printers of today have better fade
resistant inks than the Canon products, especially those with low dye
load inks.

Art

SleeperMan wrote:

> zakezuke wrote:
>
>>>IP6000 HAS LOW DYE INK THAT MAY HAVE A TENDENCY TO FADE MORE.
>>
>>So print longavity your saying one is better off considering an Epson?
>>I couldn't agree with you more.
>>
>
>
> in that case you don't have a clue...since R200 also uses dye inks. In fact,
> most of Epson's do.
> Only R800, which is veeeeeeery expensive uses pigmented ink.
> Don't compare apples and oranges...
>
> BTW...ip4000 is better than ip6000. That photo inks.... are just waste of
> money.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
August 18, 2005 3:58:53 PM

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

> You said that canon has low dye ink which fades more...so, what have Epson?
> Pigmented one?

I screwed that post one up. Not sure what I was thinking... other
than I was thinking pigment in the generic sense of stuff that adds
color. It's a long argument I've had with this guy. He claims he
never noticed canon inks fading quickly... yet at the same time will
point out the light inks in the ip6000 fade more quickly than the
others. As you pointed out in another post, at least in the case of
the lexmark the light ink is just the regular ink with more solvent.
I'm sure it is just as likely that the light inks for the epson will
fade more quickly... but not in a couple of weeks. I'm not talking
mild faiding here i'm talking hard washed out faces and sky turning to
white type fading.

It's my claim that canon bci-6 ink fade more quickly than just about
anything else on the market, it just so happens that the first you see
are the light inks, so anyone who would notice the light inks fading
should think to them selves perhaps the full load inks do as well. I'm
sure the epsons will as well, but not in the two months I kept test
prints in the window in my car.

> I mean it this way:
> sure, ip6000 does print better photos. But, since only photo paper costs
> triple of lab made photo, and you must yet to count ink used for printing,
> then fading, you come to conclusion that printed photo comes out at elast 4
> times more expensive than if you send it to a photo lab.

What I really want is the i960 head in the ip6000. While the head size
looks about the same... the i960 has about twice the nozzles so more
print per stroke.

I'll agree gernerally speaking home photoprinting is usually more
expenstive than shop printing. There are places and sizes where this
is not true, but generally speaking home printing using the OEM inks
cost an arm and a leg. But we are talking CD printing here, not photo
printing. I can't for example take my disc down to walmart and have
them print on it. In fact I don't know anywhere where I could do that
in batches of 1 for a reasonable price. Even covers... walmart and
costco won't do 5x5 covers nor 8x10.6 covers (or whatever dvd cover
size is). They will do 8x10 which would cover a jewel case very well,
but not a long box.

I don't own the r800 personaly. Costs too dang much for what I need,
which is basicly a means to organize my video and cd collection.
August 18, 2005 4:03:22 PM

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

> What do you guys think of the 5000? Does the smaller droplet size and higher
> res make the difference? I currently have a i850 with black nozzles finally
> clogging.

More spendy then the ip6000 or even the ip4200... hard to say. Some
claim that the ip4000 looks better. The problem is canon uses
dedicated nozzles where the ip4000 has 2pl and 5pl, the ip5000 has 1pl
to 5pl. It took canon a while to release another 1pl printer, the
ip4200. I'd seriously consider one as the few prints i've seen from it
look less punchy than even the ip4000.
August 18, 2005 9:01:39 PM

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

> True, we are suppose to talk about CDR printing. I guess this fades out,
> too...But, you should note that you generally keep CDR's in a dark place, so
> this must help a bit.

Well... you have the fact that CDRs should be stored in a case This
doesn't happen all the time, but generlly speaking.

But I see two sceneros assuming standard jewels

1. Case has a cover also printed from the same printer. While the
disc is mostly protected from light, whether it be clear plastic or
black plastic, the cover is not really.

2. The case has no cover in which case doesn't do you all that much
good.

I don't know the cost of printing 8x10 to be honest, well not at the
local costco or walgreens. Photographs I can get for $2.00 bucks in
8x10 on mondays and fridays. but this is slightly too small for DVD,
and even for CD you have to enlarge from a negative. I have no idea
the dye sub cost.

Assuming the estimated yield of 280p @ 5% and a cost of $10ish for 5
tanks ($50) we are looking at 14p at 100% yield at a cost of $50ish or
$3.50 each. While 100% yield of all the inks in unheard of.. unless
you are photographing gothic churches at night, Let's assume $1.75 to
$3.50. Could be on par or higher than a real photograph.

A 6 color printer... just for laughs let's assume $11.50 each since
that's a good street price... jumping up to $69.00 each. Again
assuming a yield of 280p.. or 14p @ 100% yield... This is $4.92... so
the 2.50 to $.5.00 range.

Not that i'd argue that inkjet printing is cheaper than shop printing,
generally it isn't. I just don't happen to know the price of printing
8x10 at any one of the various shops that offer it, or 8.5 x 11 for
that matter if it's even an option.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 10:07:19 PM

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

What do you guys think of the 5000? Does the smaller droplet size and higher
res make the difference? I currently have a i850 with black nozzles finally
clogging.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 11:38:08 PM

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

zakezuke wrote:
>> in that case you don't have a clue...since R200 also uses dye inks.
>> In fact, most of Epson's do.
>> Only R800, which is veeeeeeery expensive uses pigmented ink.
>> Don't compare apples and oranges...
>
>> BTW...ip4000 is better than ip6000. That photo inks.... are just
>> waste of money.
>
> Funny thing is I never said the r200 used pigment ink. But just
> because two printers use dye doesn't mean they are using dye of equal
> quality.

You said that canon has low dye ink which fades more...so, what have Epson?
Pigmented one?

>
> Try this expiment. Print on a non printable with both the r200 and
> the ip4000. Observe how the dye ink for the r200 beads up where the
> ip4000 ink runs.
>
> Anyhow all i'm saying is the r200 ink is a tad more lightfast than the
> ip4000 ink. I noticed this really fast with my cd covers either on
> kirkland or epson photo paper. The Canon ink faided in weeks where
> the epson ink I didn't notice it faiding at all. On the photo paper
> plus... a piece I set on the windowsill... the faiding isn't so bad...
> since jun30 it still resembles the image I printed.
>
> Also as some can agree the light inks for the canon fade very quickly.
> Assuming the pigments are the same and the formula is the same and
> assuming the light inks are just watered down editions of the
> pigmented inks... one who claims that the light inks faid too fast
> must also admit that the other inks are equaly prone to faiding just
> because there is more dye they don't fade to nothing as quickly.
>
> As for the ip6000 being a waste of money... could be. I like the i960
> but it's not offered with CD printing.

I mean it this way:
sure, ip6000 does print better photos. But, since only photo paper costs
triple of lab made photo, and you must yet to count ink used for printing,
then fading, you come to conclusion that printed photo comes out at elast 4
times more expensive than if you send it to a photo lab.
THAT's why it's a waste of money. It is super printer, it's just it's not
worthed to print photos, unless a few pieces every now and then and for this
ip4000 is quite excellent.This is again the reason that FADING is a very
last concern of mine. If i want to have lasting photos, no printer will make
them, so i'll send a CD to a lab and they will make some. When i print a
photo, it's just either for fun, or just for the time being, not for storage
purposes. Note also that pigmented ink (used in R800) does not shine -
tested with a guy who does have this printer and prints maybe look better (i
mean colors), but when you look to a photo, that great gloss of ip4000 can't
be beat by any R800 printed photo. Even gloss optimizer doesn't help any
much.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 2:34:39 AM

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

zakezuke wrote:
>> You said that canon has low dye ink which fades more...so, what have
>> Epson? Pigmented one?
>
> I screwed that post one up. Not sure what I was thinking... other
> than I was thinking pigment in the generic sense of stuff that adds
> color. It's a long argument I've had with this guy. He claims he
> never noticed canon inks fading quickly... yet at the same time will
> point out the light inks in the ip6000 fade more quickly than the
> others. As you pointed out in another post, at least in the case of
> the lexmark the light ink is just the regular ink with more solvent.
> I'm sure it is just as likely that the light inks for the epson will
> fade more quickly... but not in a couple of weeks. I'm not talking
> mild faiding here i'm talking hard washed out faces and sky turning to
> white type fading.
>
> It's my claim that canon bci-6 ink fade more quickly than just about
> anything else on the market, it just so happens that the first you see
> are the light inks, so anyone who would notice the light inks fading
> should think to them selves perhaps the full load inks do as well.
> I'm sure the epsons will as well, but not in the two months I kept
> test prints in the window in my car.
>
>> I mean it this way:
>> sure, ip6000 does print better photos. But, since only photo paper
>> costs triple of lab made photo, and you must yet to count ink used
>> for printing, then fading, you come to conclusion that printed photo
>> comes out at elast 4 times more expensive than if you send it to a
>> photo lab.
>
> What I really want is the i960 head in the ip6000. While the head
> size looks about the same... the i960 has about twice the nozzles so
> more print per stroke.
>
> I'll agree gernerally speaking home photoprinting is usually more
> expenstive than shop printing. There are places and sizes where this
> is not true, but generally speaking home printing using the OEM inks
> cost an arm and a leg. But we are talking CD printing here, not photo
> printing. I can't for example take my disc down to walmart and have
> them print on it. In fact I don't know anywhere where I could do that
> in batches of 1 for a reasonable price. Even covers... walmart and
> costco won't do 5x5 covers nor 8x10.6 covers (or whatever dvd cover
> size is). They will do 8x10 which would cover a jewel case very well,
> but not a long box.
>
> I don't own the r800 personaly. Costs too dang much for what I need,
> which is basicly a means to organize my video and cd collection.

i'm glad we come to agree. I never had any photo in direct sun, so i can't
say, but i do have a number of them in the room on the wall (not direct
sunlight) for a while now - some of them are still from my late i550 and
they are not visible faded, so i'm quite happy.
True, we are suppose to talk about CDR printing. I guess this fades out,
too...But, you should note that you generally keep CDR's in a dark place, so
this must help a bit...
There were times i used to think that color laser would do the trick, but
then i found out that they are not near as good as inkjets...damn...
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 2:38:26 AM

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

zakezuke wrote:
>> What do you guys think of the 5000? Does the smaller droplet size
>> and higher res make the difference? I currently have a i850 with
>> black nozzles finally clogging.
>
> More spendy then the ip6000 or even the ip4200... hard to say. Some
> claim that the ip4000 looks better. The problem is canon uses
> dedicated nozzles where the ip4000 has 2pl and 5pl, the ip5000 has 1pl
> to 5pl. It took canon a while to release another 1pl printer, the
> ip4200. I'd seriously consider one as the few prints i've seen from
> it look less punchy than even the ip4000.

1pl...only canon and noone else so far...it makes me wonder, is it canon so
wise or are all others so bloddy stupid?
.... will be any head clog problems...so bloddy small drop...ouch!
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 5:08:20 PM

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

zakezuke wrote:
>> True, we are suppose to talk about CDR printing. I guess this fades
>> out, too...But, you should note that you generally keep CDR's in a
>> dark place, so this must help a bit.
>
> Well... you have the fact that CDRs should be stored in a case This
> doesn't happen all the time, but generlly speaking.
>
> But I see two sceneros assuming standard jewels
>
> 1. Case has a cover also printed from the same printer. While the
> disc is mostly protected from light, whether it be clear plastic or
> black plastic, the cover is not really.
>
> 2. The case has no cover in which case doesn't do you all that much
> good.
>
> I don't know the cost of printing 8x10 to be honest, well not at the
> local costco or walgreens. Photographs I can get for $2.00 bucks in
> 8x10 on mondays and fridays. but this is slightly too small for DVD,
> and even for CD you have to enlarge from a negative. I have no idea
> the dye sub cost.
>
> Assuming the estimated yield of 280p @ 5% and a cost of $10ish for 5
> tanks ($50) we are looking at 14p at 100% yield at a cost of $50ish or
> $3.50 each. While 100% yield of all the inks in unheard of.. unless
> you are photographing gothic churches at night, Let's assume $1.75 to
> $3.50. Could be on par or higher than a real photograph.
>
> A 6 color printer... just for laughs let's assume $11.50 each since
> that's a good street price... jumping up to $69.00 each. Again
> assuming a yield of 280p.. or 14p @ 100% yield... This is $4.92... so
> the 2.50 to $.5.00 range.
>
> Not that i'd argue that inkjet printing is cheaper than shop printing,
> generally it isn't. I just don't happen to know the price of printing
> 8x10 at any one of the various shops that offer it, or 8.5 x 11 for
> that matter if it's even an option.

the price indeed varies over countries. Even here, prices in different shops
are even 100% or more different. But cheapest one is half of the price of
Canon Photo paper Glossy+ sheet only, not counting ink used.
For me, photo printing is only for a couple of them since it's not worthed
to order just a few photos in a shop. If i do that, then i order more, like
50 or 100 of them. Then it's worthed.
August 19, 2005 10:29:41 PM

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

On 18 Aug 2005 17:01:39 -0700, "zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Switched on the printer and i get this message
Service error 6A00.
Cancel printing and turn the printer off and then back on.
If this doesn't clear the error, see the printer manual for more
detail.
It doesn't say anything about error 6A00 in the manual!
>> True, we are suppose to talk about CDR printing. I guess this fades out,
>> too...But, you should note that you generally keep CDR's in a dark place, so
>> this must help a bit.
>
>Well... you have the fact that CDRs should be stored in a case This
>doesn't happen all the time, but generlly speaking.
>
>But I see two sceneros assuming standard jewels
>
>1. Case has a cover also printed from the same printer. While the
>disc is mostly protected from light, whether it be clear plastic or
>black plastic, the cover is not really.
>
>2. The case has no cover in which case doesn't do you all that much
>good.
>
>I don't know the cost of printing 8x10 to be honest, well not at the
>local costco or walgreens. Photographs I can get for $2.00 bucks in
>8x10 on mondays and fridays. but this is slightly too small for DVD,
>and even for CD you have to enlarge from a negative. I have no idea
>the dye sub cost.
>
>Assuming the estimated yield of 280p @ 5% and a cost of $10ish for 5
>tanks ($50) we are looking at 14p at 100% yield at a cost of $50ish or
>$3.50 each. While 100% yield of all the inks in unheard of.. unless
>you are photographing gothic churches at night, Let's assume $1.75 to
>$3.50. Could be on par or higher than a real photograph.
>
>A 6 color printer... just for laughs let's assume $11.50 each since
>that's a good street price... jumping up to $69.00 each. Again
>assuming a yield of 280p.. or 14p @ 100% yield... This is $4.92... so
>the 2.50 to $.5.00 range.
>
>Not that i'd argue that inkjet printing is cheaper than shop printing,
>generally it isn't. I just don't happen to know the price of printing
>8x10 at any one of the various shops that offer it, or 8.5 x 11 for
>that matter if it's even an option.
August 20, 2005 7:25:43 PM

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

On 19 Aug 2005 11:13:20 -0700, "zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>You can get the service manual here
>
>http://www.eserviceinfo.com/equipment_mfg/Canon_22.html
>
>AP position error [6A00] - Sheet feed unit (QM2-1220)- Logic board
>ass'y (QM2-1548)*1
>
>I know nothing about this error, doesn't sound good. This is one of
>those errors that you should talk to support first and consider
>replacing your printer, or if it's new return it. I never got this
>error before.
>

Cheers,just got a replacement and at the moment testing to see which
prints the better cdrs canon or epson
August 20, 2005 10:04:18 PM

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

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10:53 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
wrote:

>MAKE SURE YOU COMPARE BOTH USING OEM INK. YOU WILL FIND THE IP4000 HAS
>MORE PIZAAZ AND RICHER COLOR.

I totally agree the canon is better.The photo's are lot more smoother
and blacks are far better
I won't be using the R200 to print anymore cdrs/dvds
August 21, 2005 4:34:07 PM

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

I'd say any Canon printer is more reliable and economical than the
R200, be it a ip4000 or ip5000.

The ink tanks lasts far longer and they don'e waste as much ink, I've
had the ip5000 about three months or slightly over and not a single
head clean required, 100% prints every time, with the two Epsons I
had, one clogged on the 2nd day, the replacement clogged on the 4th
day plus the fact you had to check each print for faulty printing.

Davy
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 7:01:49 PM

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

Davy wrote:
> I'd say any Canon printer is more reliable and economical than the
> R200, be it a ip4000 or ip5000.
>
>
.... I've had the ip5000 about three months or slightly over and not a single
> head clean required, ...

That's because Canon printers clean their heads automatically very often.
Typical almost each time you turn it on, and definitely each time after you
open the cover to see remaining ink...Note how long it takes before print is
started...that's because it cleans it's head...
!