Canon IP6000D - Opinions Sought

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

To anyone with a Canon's IP6000D printer, how do you like it? With 4x6
photo paper loaded in the bottom tray does the paper stay aligned during
printing? I've heard rumors that it doesn't but I never that from an actual
owner. I'm considering buying this model or the newer IP6600D. TIA
16 answers Last reply
More about canon ip6000d opinions sought
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > To anyone with a Canon's IP6000D printer, how do you like it?

    I don't own them.. but have links to decent reviews

    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/canon_i960.html
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_ip6000d.html

    I'd like to add look at the i960. You can typicaly only find it on
    close out but it has more nozzles than the ip6000 but doesn't support
    CD printing unless your in a country that sold the i965. the ip6600D
    looks interesting but is to new to find any decent reviews.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    This is not a good choice if you are going to use a computer to edit and
    print. The IP4000 prints somewhat better photos, is faster, and
    substantially better business documents.

    The 6000 only benefits those who want to print from the camera without
    using a computer.

    Tim wrote:

    >To anyone with a Canon's IP6000D printer, how do you like it? With 4x6
    >photo paper loaded in the bottom tray does the paper stay aligned during
    >printing? I've heard rumors that it doesn't but I never that from an actual
    >owner. I'm considering buying this model or the newer IP6600D. TIA
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    GO READ REVIEWS AT www.pcmag.com and www.pcworld.com

    zakezuke wrote:

    >>To anyone with a Canon's IP6000D printer, how do you like it?
    >>
    >>
    >
    >I don't own them.. but have links to decent reviews
    >
    >http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/canon_i960.html
    >http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_ip6000d.html
    >
    >I'd like to add look at the i960. You can typicaly only find it on
    >close out but it has more nozzles than the ip6000 but doesn't support
    >CD printing unless your in a country that sold the i965. the ip6600D
    >looks interesting but is to new to find any decent reviews.
    >
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
    news:_ZBXe.327$G64.40@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
    > This is not a good choice if you are going to use a computer to edit and
    > print. The IP4000 prints somewhat better photos, is faster, and
    > substantially better business documents.
    >
    > The 6000 only benefits those who want to print from the camera without using
    > a computer.

    You're forgetting that the 6000D has automatic duplexing, which the 4000
    doesn't. That alone justifies the extra $30 for me! I also would say that --
    while you're probably correct that the 4000 produces better photos and is
    faster, the average user would be VERY hard pressed to see the difference
    (and if they could, they'd probably be looking at something fancier than a
    $100 printer anyway?); the 6000D is both fast and produces very good photos,
    just as the 4000 does.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    >> This is not a good choice if you are going to use a computer to edit and print.
    >> The IP4000 prints somewhat better photos, is faster,
    >> and substantially better business documents.

    > You're forgetting that the 6000D has automatic duplexing, which the 4000
    > doesn't. That alone justifies the extra $30 for me! I also would say that --
    > while you're probably correct that the 4000 produces better photos and is
    > faster, the average user would be VERY hard pressed to see the difference
    > (and if they could, they'd probably be looking at something fancier than a
    > $100 printer anyway?); the 6000D is both fast and produces very good photos,
    > just as the 4000 does.


    Ummm.. the ip4000 has duplexing, as does the ip3000, 5000, 6000D, 8500,
    need I go on? The big edge on the ip6000d are the light inks. The big
    drawback on the ip6000 is the lack of a dedicated text ink cartridge.
    As the printhead nozzle set is smallish, it's not as fast as other
    printers in the line which is rather why I bring up the i960... double
    the nozzles at the same dpi, which while it doesn't have the dual paper
    trays it does support duplex printing IIRC.

    This whole "business documents" is some PC world rag sugestion that
    boils down to doesn't print text as fast or as well. Valid enough
    except anyone considering this printer would be doing so because it's a
    photo printer, not a document printer. If you need CD printing, want
    the dual trays, and heck even a spiffy 2.5 inch screen to print from
    solid state media great... go ip6000 if not the new ip6600D. If you
    don't need these extra features... the i960 is most spiffy. But if you
    plan to print text documents to any degree it might be wiser to consider
    the general purpose printers that are currently in canon's line up which
    include the ip3000/ip4000/5000/4200/5200.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    The iP4000 doesn't have automatic duplexing???? Where did you get that bit
    of information? My iP4000 and iP3000 certainly have that function.
    --
    Ron

    "Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:11iuq4hkc4tona9@corp.supernews.com...
    > "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
    > news:_ZBXe.327$G64.40@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
    >> This is not a good choice if you are going to use a computer to edit and
    >> print. The IP4000 prints somewhat better photos, is faster, and
    >> substantially better business documents.
    >>
    >> The 6000 only benefits those who want to print from the camera without
    >> using a computer.
    >
    > You're forgetting that the 6000D has automatic duplexing, which the 4000
    > doesn't. That alone justifies the extra $30 for me! I also would say
    > that -- while you're probably correct that the 4000 produces better
    > photos and is faster, the average user would be VERY hard pressed to see
    > the difference (and if they could, they'd probably be looking at something
    > fancier than a $100 printer anyway?); the 6000D is both fast and produces
    > very good photos, just as the 4000 does.
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Matt Zukowski" <zakezuke_us@moc.oohay.invalid> wrote in message
    news:dgnt7a$c9i$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
    >>> This is not a good choice if you are going to use a computer to edit and
    >>> print. The IP4000 prints somewhat better photos, is faster,
    > >> and substantially better business documents.
    >
    >> You're forgetting that the 6000D has automatic duplexing, which the 4000
    >> doesn't. That alone justifies the extra $30 for me! I also would say
    >> that -- while you're probably correct that the 4000 produces better
    >> photos and is faster, the average user would be VERY hard pressed to see
    >> the difference (and if they could, they'd probably be looking at
    >> something fancier than a $100 printer anyway?); the 6000D is both fast
    >> and produces very good photos, just as the 4000 does.
    >
    >
    > Ummm.. the ip4000 has duplexing, as does the ip3000, 5000, 6000D, 8500,
    > need I go on? The big edge on the ip6000d are the light inks. The big
    > drawback on the ip6000 is the lack of a dedicated text ink cartridge. As
    > the printhead nozzle set is smallish, it's not as fast as other printers
    > in the line which is rather why I bring up the i960... double the nozzles
    > at the same dpi, which while it doesn't have the dual paper trays it does
    > support duplex printing IIRC.

    I use an i960 - really good photo printer. I use MIS inks and refill.
    Excellent color match with OEM and no clogs in a year of use. No duplex
    printing, but I use it only for photos and color graphics. I use an HP 5P
    laser printer for "business" documents. The i960 has more nozzles and is
    reputed to be a better printer than its "upgrade" model, the ip6000. I
    think there are still a few new ones in the pipeline.

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

    > I use an i960 - really good photo printer. I use MIS inks and refill.
    > Excellent color match with OEM and no clogs in a year of use. No duplex
    > printing, but I use it only for photos and color graphics. I use an HP 5P
    > laser printer for "business" documents. The i960 has more nozzles and is
    > reputed to be a better printer than its "upgrade" model, the ip6000. I
    > think there are still a few new ones in the pipeline.

    Ah... my mistake on the i960... duplex printing requires the DPU-10
    Duplex Printing Unit (i860 Series i960 Series).
  9. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "drc023" <d+r+c+0+2+3@sbcXXXglobalYYY.ZZZnet> wrote in message
    news:sEKXe.1163$Ba2.174@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
    > The iP4000 doesn't have automatic duplexing???? Where did you get that bit
    > of information? My iP4000 and iP3000 certainly have that function.

    Hmmm, my mistake! Sorry about that... I thought the 'D' stood for
    'duplexing' -- maybe it stands for 'display?'

    OK, so the $30 is just for the LCD...
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    TELL THE SHMUCK

    drc023 wrote:

    >The iP4000 doesn't have automatic duplexing???? Where did you get that bit
    >of information? My iP4000 and iP3000 certainly have that function.
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Matt Zukowski wrote:

    >>> This is not a good choice if you are going to use a computer to edit
    >>> and print.
    >>
    > >> The IP4000 prints somewhat better photos, is faster,
    > >> and substantially better business documents.
    >
    >> You're forgetting that the 6000D has automatic duplexing, which the
    >> 4000 doesn't. That alone justifies the extra $30 for me! I also
    >> would say that -- while you're probably correct that the 4000
    >> produces better photos and is faster, the average user would be VERY
    >> hard pressed to see the difference (and if they could, they'd
    >> probably be looking at something fancier than a $100 printer
    >> anyway?); the 6000D is both fast and produces very good photos, just
    >> as the 4000 does.
    >
    >
    >
    > Ummm.. the ip4000 has duplexing, as does the ip3000, 5000, 6000D,
    > 8500, need I go on? The big edge on the ip6000d are the light inks.

    NOT REALLY AN EDGE. THE IP4000 HAS BETTER PRINT RESULTS AND FADES LESS.

    > The big drawback on the ip6000 is the lack of a dedicated text ink
    > cartridge. As the printhead nozzle set is smallish, it's not as fast
    > as other printers in the line which is rather why I bring up the
    > i960... double the nozzles at the same dpi, which while it doesn't
    > have the dual paper trays it does support duplex printing IIRC.
    >
    > This whole "business documents" is some PC world rag sugestion that
    > boils down to doesn't print text as fast or as well. Valid enough
    > except anyone considering this printer would be doing so because it's
    > a photo printer, not a document printer. If you need CD printing,
    > want the dual trays, and heck even a spiffy 2.5 inch screen


    A WASTE OF TIME IF YOU EDIT WITH YOUR COMPUTER OR COPY THE JPG FILES TO
    YOUR COMPUTER.

    > to print from solid state media great... go ip6000 if not the new
    > ip6600D. If you don't need these extra features... the i960 is most
    > spiffy.


    2 GENERATIONS OUT OF DATE. HOW ABOUT AN EPSON MX80

    > But if you plan to print text documents to any degree it might be
    > wiser to consider the general purpose printers that are currently in
    > canon's line up which include the ip3000/ip4000/5000/4200/5200.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    measekite wrote:

    >> Ummm.. the ip4000 has duplexing, as does the ip3000, 5000, 6000D,
    >> 8500, need I go on? The big edge on the ip6000d are the light inks.
    >
    >
    > not really an edge. the ip4000 has better print results and fades
    > less

    This is your opinion. This isn't a fact.

    It's true that canon inks fade quickly... even the new inks are only
    rated at 10 years, and as the light inks are just watered down versions
    of the full dye load inks they would be more prone to fading. But they
    are not primary inks but fill inks.

    > a waste of time if you edit with your computer or copy the jpg files
    > to your computer.

    Just because a printer has an extra feature doesn't mean you have to use
    it.

    >> to print from solid state media great... go ip6000 if not the new
    >> ip6600D. If you don't need these extra features... the i960 is most
    >> spiffy.
    >
    >
    >
    > 2 generations out of date. how about an epson mx80

    Or a i9900 perhaps? It's also two generations out of date. You said it
    not me.

    The i960 has twice the nozzles than the i960. This is a fact. It is
    faster than the ip6000d. this is a fact. While released in 2003 it's
    still better than the ip6000d. This is a fact.

    You reccomend the i5200, yet it's head is the ip5000 head. That is last
    generation. by your logic that's bad.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Burt wrote:

    >"Matt Zukowski" <zakezuke_us@moc.oohay.invalid> wrote in message
    >news:dgnt7a$c9i$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
    >
    >
    >>>>This is not a good choice if you are going to use a computer to edit and
    >>>>print. The IP4000 prints somewhat better photos, is faster,
    >>>>and substantially better business documents.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>You're forgetting that the 6000D has automatic duplexing, which the 4000
    >>>doesn't. That alone justifies the extra $30 for me! I also would say
    >>>that -- while you're probably correct that the 4000 produces better
    >>>photos and is faster, the average user would be VERY hard pressed to see
    >>>the difference (and if they could, they'd probably be looking at
    >>>something fancier than a $100 printer anyway?); the 6000D is both fast
    >>>and produces very good photos, just as the 4000 does.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>Ummm.. the ip4000 has duplexing, as does the ip3000, 5000, 6000D, 8500,
    >>need I go on? The big edge on the ip6000d are the light inks. The big
    >>drawback on the ip6000 is the lack of a dedicated text ink cartridge. As
    >>the printhead nozzle set is smallish, it's not as fast as other printers
    >>in the line which is rather why I bring up the i960... double the nozzles
    >>at the same dpi, which while it doesn't have the dual paper trays it does
    >>support duplex printing IIRC.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >I use an i960 - really good photo printer. I use snip inks and refill. What a pain in the ass.
    >Excellent color match with OEM and 5 clogs in a year of use. No duplex
    >printing, but I use it only for photos and color graphics. I use an HP 15P
    >laser printer for "business" documents. The i960 has more nozzles and is
    >reputed to be a better printer than its "upgrade" model, the ip6000. I
    >think there are still a few new ones in the pipeline.
    >
    >(snip)
    >
    >
    >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Matt Zukowski wrote:

    > measekite wrote:
    >
    >>> Ummm.. the ip4000 has duplexing, as does the ip3000, 5000, 6000D,
    >>> 8500, need I go on? The big edge on the ip6000d are the light inks.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    > > not really an edge. the ip4000 has better print results and fades
    > > less
    >
    > This is your opinion. This isn't a fact.

    WWW.PCMAG.COM

    >
    >
    > It's true that canon inks fade quickly... even the new inks are only
    > rated at 10 years, and as the light inks are just watered down
    > versions of the full dye load inks they would be more prone to
    > fading. But they are not primary inks but fill inks.
    >
    > > a waste of time if you edit with your computer or copy the jpg files
    > > to your computer.
    >
    > Just because a printer has an extra feature doesn't mean you have to
    > use it.
    >
    THEN DO NOT PAY FOR IT. DUMASS

    >>> to print from solid state media great... go ip6000 if not the new
    >>> ip6600D. If you don't need these extra features... the i960 is most
    >>> spiffy.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> 2 generations out of date. how about an epson mx80
    >
    >
    > Or a i9900 perhaps? It's also two generations out of date. You said
    > it not me.


    U R A PUTZ. THIS PRINTER CAME OUT 15 MONTHS AGO AND IS STILL CURRENT IN
    THE CANON LINE. THERE ARE NO REPLACEDMENTS.. WHY ARE U STOOOPID

    >
    > The i960 has twice the nozzles than the i960. This is a fact. It is
    > faster than the ip6000d. this is a fact. While released in 2003 it's
    > still better than the ip6000d. This is a fact.
    >
    > You reccomend the i5200, yet it's head is the ip5000 head. That is
    > last generation. by your logic that's bad.


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

    >> > not really an edge. the ip4000 has better print results and fades
    >> > less
    >>
    >> This is your opinion. This isn't a fact.
    >
    >
    > www.pcmag.com

    So what you are telling us this isn't even your opinion but that of
    someone else who got published in pcmag? Oh please! And you don't even
    link to the articals in question.

    Your bigest quote from them are their tests on business documents, which
    is nutz because we're talking photo printers... photo printers.

    Someone buying a photo printer isn't likely interested in business
    documents. Please try to understand this... "photo printers"

    >> It's true that canon inks fade quickly... even the new inks are only
    >> rated at 10 years, and as the light inks are just watered down
    >> versions of the full dye load inks they would be more prone to
    >> fading. But they are not primary inks but fill inks.
    >>
    >> > a waste of time if you edit with your computer or copy the jpg files
    >> > to your computer.
    >>
    >> Just because a printer has an extra feature doesn't mean you have to
    >> use it.
    >>

    >then do not pay for it

    And buy the older generation i960

    You see... this is what you do not understand. The ip6000 and even the
    ip6600d come with a spiffy screen. If you want a 6 ink tank printer
    current generation... you have no choice but to buy it with a screen.
    It's very simple.


    >>
    >> Or a i9900 perhaps? It's also two generations out of date. You said
    >> it not me.
    >
    > u r a putz. this printer came out 15 months ago and is still current
    >in the canon line. there are no replacements... why are u stooopid

    If a generation is 12 months this would be two generations ago. Your
    the one who talked about generations being a qualifying factor rather
    than... I don't know quality and features. By saying this you admit you
    are stupid.

    You see... there was never a direct replacement for the i960. The
    ip6000d was a downgrade in many respects. So just like one might
    consider the i9900 even though it's not a pixma, not a current
    generation printer... there is not a replacement for it yet.

    Now one might consider the ip6600d... but the jury is still out on this
    issue. But someone like your self would still reccomend the ip4000 even
    though it's last generation and 2pl... and further more would claim that
    the ip5000 is a bad choice because it's slower. So what you are saying
    is one may consider an older generation printer if it's faster an
    provides better photo quality. So using your logic the i960 is a good
    choice. Glad we can agree on this issue

    The i960 is a good choice over the ip6000d because

    1. It's faster
    2. marginaly better photo quality
    3. doesn't have that screen you don't need cause it supports pictbridge

    It's so nice when both you and I can agree on something.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I would expect residents in the UK to consider photo printers because of
    the fact that from my understanding the cost for professional printing
    is higher. I.e. even going with OEM inks it may cost less to print from
    home. What we need to learn today is how to put our selves in other
    people's shoes and that different markets have different prices.

    While the i960 doesn't have dual paper trays nor duplex unless you get
    the spiffy add on (DPU-10 Duplex Printing Unit) this is pretty much
    useless in a photo printer.

    Whether a person needs a photo printer or a general purpose printer is
    entirely up to them. But the fact of the matter is the i960 has double
    the nozzles at the same dpi as the ip6000, the i960 is faster. This
    resolves the issue with your complaint on speed. Also it has that
    spiffy switch at the top to jump from using 4x6 or a4/letter. Very handy.

    And because you agree 100% that the i9900 has NOT been replaced by a
    pixma and is a good printer, clearly you must also agree the i960 was
    wasn't really replaced by a pixma with the exception of the ip6600d
    which no one has ever seen yet. So you see... by following your advice
    the i960 is a good choice.

    Thank you for your input... this resolves any confusion with users who
    are not aware that sometimes newer models are not as good as older models.
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Photo Canon Peripherals