Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is Canon large format printer any good?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 23, 2005 2:21:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am looking for a 24inch inkjet. I have doubts about the HP Designjet
130nr; the Epson 4000 prints a little too small for my needs; the Epson 7600
is a possibility, however, I saw a 24 inch Canon printer in a showroom, but
have not tested it. I have reasons to trust Cannon. Has anybody had any
experience of the Cannon 24 inch printer? Thanks in advance for any
comments.
Nobody
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 7:05:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nobody wrote:
> I am looking for a 24inch inkjet. I have doubts about the HP Designjet
> 130nr; the Epson 4000 prints a little too small for my needs; the Epson 7600
> is a possibility, however, I saw a 24 inch Canon printer in a showroom, but
> have not tested it. I have reasons to trust Cannon. Has anybody had any
> experience of the Cannon 24 inch printer? Thanks in advance for any
> comments.
> Nobody
>

I suggest you find out the model number then go to google.com and type in "Canon
<model number> review" - replace <model number> with the actual model number.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 10:03:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>I saw a 24 inch Canon printer in a showroom, but
>have not tested it. ... Has anybody had any
>experience of the Cannon 24 inch printer?

The prices on some of these new wide carriage models from HP and Canon
are enticing. But note some of the new wide format printers are only
600 or 1200 dpi, which is a bit thin for highest quality photo work.
Others are 2400 dpi or higher (the Epsons you mention are 2,880 for
many papers, I think the HP is 2400 too) and I think you'll be able to
see the differences in prints. The 600/1200 dpi models are more likely
to be used for signage or proofs (I think) rather than fine art, so
make sure you check the specs.

Bill
Related resources
March 23, 2005 4:58:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks, why didn't I think of this (no answer please... :-)).


On 23/3/05 4:05 am, in article ju57h2-5j4.ln1@centauri.unico.com.au, "Ben
Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote:

> nobody wrote:
>> I am looking for a 24inch inkjet. I have doubts about the HP Designjet
>> 130nr; the Epson 4000 prints a little too small for my needs; the Epson 7600
>> is a possibility, however, I saw a 24 inch Canon printer in a showroom, but
>> have not tested it. I have reasons to trust Cannon. Has anybody had any
>> experience of the Cannon 24 inch printer? Thanks in advance for any
>> comments.
>> Nobody
>>
>
> I suggest you find out the model number then go to google.com and type in
> "Canon
> <model number> review" - replace <model number> with the actual model number.
March 24, 2005 9:17:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The Canon plotters are "POSTER" printers, not photo printers. The difference
is not noticable at 20 feet but it sure as hell is as normal viewing
distance. Exactly what doubts do you have about the HP designjets? HP lead
the world in dye based photo plotters.

Douglas
-------------
"nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote in message
news:BE6658E3.1141%nobody@nowhere.com.re...
>I am looking for a 24inch inkjet. I have doubts about the HP Designjet
> 130nr; the Epson 4000 prints a little too small for my needs; the Epson
> 7600
> is a possibility, however, I saw a 24 inch Canon printer in a showroom,
> but
> have not tested it. I have reasons to trust Cannon. Has anybody had any
> experience of the Cannon 24 inch printer? Thanks in advance for any
> comments.
> Nobody
>
March 24, 2005 9:17:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thank you for pointing out the difference between poster printers and photo
printers. The doubts about the 130nr are, as far as I can tell, a somewhat
inferior resolution and definition of detail as compared with my current
printer, Canon i9950. To me this does not seem unimportant, for example,
rendering the texture of the subject, I believe, leads to a better picture,
even if one looks at it from a distance. The bricks on my i9950 looked
better defined, than the bricks on the 130. Don't get me wrong, the bricks
on the 130, and the texture of the metal and wall were there, but they
looked slightly out of focus, when compared to the i9950, if you know what
I mean. The speed of the 130 was phenomenal, but my interest is not in
speed, it is in image or print quality, I really want the best I can get
without having to spend 1/2 million dollars.... May be the 130 was not
demonstrated under the best conditions, I don't know. This seems to leave
me only with the Epson 7600, however, despite what I said above, this
printer is going to the other extreme, it is much too slow, and, in
addition, it has a drink problem :-), it drinks too much ink. As I said in
the original article, I am using a Hasseleblad, I like the square frame,
and is seems such a shame to waste all those pixels from my excellent
scanner by not having a 6 of so extra inches on each side of the frame. Any
ideas?
Nobody

On 23/3/05 8:17 pm, in article 3ae17mF67u52vU1@individual.net, "Douglas"
<decipleofeos@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The Canon plotters are "POSTER" printers, not photo printers. The difference
> is not noticable at 20 feet but it sure as hell is as normal viewing
> distance. Exactly what doubts do you have about the HP designjets? HP lead
> the world in dye based photo plotters.
>
> Douglas
> -------------
> "nobody" <nobody@nowhere.com.re> wrote in message
> news:BE6658E3.1141%nobody@nowhere.com.re...
>> I am looking for a 24inch inkjet. I have doubts about the HP Designjet
>> 130nr; the Epson 4000 prints a little too small for my needs; the Epson
>> 7600
>> is a possibility, however, I saw a 24 inch Canon printer in a showroom,
>> but
>> have not tested it. I have reasons to trust Cannon. Has anybody had any
>> experience of the Cannon 24 inch printer? Thanks in advance for any
>> comments.
>> Nobody
>>
>
>
March 24, 2005 7:06:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Hilton wrote:
> The prices on some of these new wide carriage models from HP and Canon
> are enticing. But note some of the new wide format printers are only
> 600 or 1200 dpi, which is a bit thin for highest quality photo work.

True, but if your printing something big, your not supposed to stand 2
inches from it and squint.

That said, almost all the decent big printers on the market output at their
top resolution by default, so if you feed it a file thats only got enough
pixel data for 300dpi you still get a 1200dpi print (or whatever)
--

Rick

Digital Printing
www.intelligence-direct.com - 01270 215550
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 8:27:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rick wrote:

>Bill Hilton wrote:
>
>
>>The prices on some of these new wide carriage models from HP and Canon
>>are enticing. But note some of the new wide format printers are only
>>600 or 1200 dpi, which is a bit thin for highest quality photo work.
>>
>>
>
>True, but if your printing something big, your not supposed to stand 2
>inches from it and squint.
>
>

How can you print more than what is there; and I do not mean interpolation.

>That said, almost all the decent big printers on the market output at their
>top resolution by default, so if you feed it a file thats only got enough
>pixel data for 300dpi you still get a 1200dpi print (or whatever)
>
>
!