Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon i950 vs. ip6000D

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 8:46:01 PM

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

It looks like my old Canon i950 ain't going to work any more - at least, not
without a new print head and the price of that seems perilously close to the
price of a new printer.

I thought the modern equivalent was the i965 but it looks like even that is
obsolete now. It seems to me that the nearest current equivalent to the
i950 is the ip6000D. Is that right?

So I am trying to decide whether to fork out about 85 UK pounds for a print
head to revive my i950, against about 140 UK pounds for a brand new ip6000D.

The reviews all agree that the resolution of the ip6000D is 4800x1200. Some
sites list the same resolution for the i950 whilst others claim the i950 was
4800x2400. So my first question...

Does anyone know definitively whether the ip6000D has the same resolution as
the i950, or whether it is theoretically inferior?

If it is the case that moving from i950 to ip6000D means going to a lower
resolution printer, I guess the next question is will I actually notice?
Anyone have a view as to whether 4800x1200 is noticably worse than
4800x2400?

Although it's not a must-have for me, does the ip6000D print labels on CDs?
Again, this is a question upon which the reviews seem to disagree.

In addition to answers to these specific questions, any comments or general
observations on the rival merits of the i950 and ip6000D?

Regards
Keith

More about : canon i950 ip6000d

March 29, 2005 8:46:02 PM

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

In article <dDf2e.200$Bv6.8@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, keith.sheppard@tesco.net
says...
> It looks like my old Canon i950 ain't going to work any more - at least, not
> without a new print head and the price of that seems perilously close to the
> price of a new printer.
>
>
>

Is it a clogged print head or some other failure??

The printhead on an i950/i960 can be cleared this way:

Get some household Ammonia, and some distilled water.

Make a mix that is about 10% household ammonia and 90% distilled water.

Pour about a quarter cup of this mix into a paper or foam cup and warm it a
few seconds in a microwave (dont boil it, just heat it up to 100 or 120
degrees F

Fold up a soft paper napkin or paper towell into a small pad and place it on
a saucer and soak it with the Warm Ammonia/water.

Place the print head print side down on the wet pad and let it soak for a few
minutes.

Now load an eye dropper with the water/Ammonia and after the head has soaked
for a few minutes pick it up and put it back into the printer.

Now using the eye dropper place a drop or two of the liquid onto each intake
on the head, then quickly place the ink cartridges (with ink in them) into
place and run a few cleaning cycles, then do a print test.

If it doesn't work right away, do the whole thing twice more. If it hasnt
cleared by then, it probably wont clear.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
March 29, 2005 8:46:02 PM

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

You might try posting this to comp.periphs.printers.

Winston


Keith Sheppard wrote:
> It looks like my old Canon i950 ain't going to work any more - at
least, not
> without a new print head and the price of that seems perilously close
to the
> price of a new printer.
>
> I thought the modern equivalent was the i965 but it looks like even
that is
> obsolete now. It seems to me that the nearest current equivalent to
the
> i950 is the ip6000D. Is that right?
>
> So I am trying to decide whether to fork out about 85 UK pounds for a
print
> head to revive my i950, against about 140 UK pounds for a brand new
ip6000D.
>
> The reviews all agree that the resolution of the ip6000D is
4800x1200. Some
> sites list the same resolution for the i950 whilst others claim the
i950 was
> 4800x2400. So my first question...
>
> Does anyone know definitively whether the ip6000D has the same
resolution as
> the i950, or whether it is theoretically inferior?
>
> If it is the case that moving from i950 to ip6000D means going to a
lower
> resolution printer, I guess the next question is will I actually
notice?
> Anyone have a view as to whether 4800x1200 is noticably worse than
> 4800x2400?
>
> Although it's not a must-have for me, does the ip6000D print labels
on CDs?
> Again, this is a question upon which the reviews seem to disagree.
>
> In addition to answers to these specific questions, any comments or
general
> observations on the rival merits of the i950 and ip6000D?
>
> Regards
> Keith
Related resources
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 1:24:03 AM

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

You may want to look into Epson printers. I have both Canon and Epson
printers and color management is distinctly more reliable with Epson's print
drivers.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 2:31:59 AM

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

Have a look at the epson r range , I have an r300 which is old hat now
almost , less than 100 quid now , prints on cd's extremely well and does a
damn fine job on decent paper , they probably do a better one now but have
always been impressed with them as a reseller and user of them.




"bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:THj2e.16706$C47.3884@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> You may want to look into Epson printers. I have both Canon and Epson
> printers and color management is distinctly more reliable with Epson's
> print drivers.
>
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 10:10:07 AM

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

Keith Sheppard wrote:

>It looks like my old Canon i950 ain't going to work any more - at least, not
>without a new print head and the price of that seems perilously close to the
>price of a new printer.
>
>I thought the modern equivalent was the i965 but it looks like even that is
>obsolete now. It seems to me that the nearest current equivalent to the
>i950 is the ip6000D. Is that right?
>
>

You will find that the IP4000, a 5 cart (4 color photo) PIXMA printer is
better than the IP6000D in that it can produce better results faster and
cheaper and costs around $40.00 less. The only people who should get the
IP6000 are those who want to or need to print without a computer using
the tiny LCD. Those people are a printer mgf dream.

I have an IP4000 and other than the i9900 or the IP8500 it is the best
and the best value in all regards.

>So I am trying to decide whether to fork out about 85 UK pounds for a print
>head to revive my i950, against about 140 UK pounds for a brand new ip6000D.
>
>The reviews all agree that the resolution of the ip6000D is 4800x1200. Some
>sites list the same resolution for the i950 whilst others claim the i950 was
>4800x2400. So my first question...
>
>Does anyone know definitively whether the ip6000D has the same resolution as
>the i950, or whether it is theoretically inferior?
>
>If it is the case that moving from i950 to ip6000D means going to a lower
>resolution printer, I guess the next question is will I actually notice?
>Anyone have a view as to whether 4800x1200 is noticably worse than
>4800x2400?
>
>Although it's not a must-have for me, does the ip6000D print labels on CDs?
>Again, this is a question upon which the reviews seem to disagree.
>
>
The European version of the IP4000 prints directly on Cds.

>In addition to answers to these specific questions, any comments or general
>observations on the rival merits of the i950 and ip6000D?
>
>Regards
>Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 12:34:48 PM

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

>>> It looks like my old Canon i950 ain't going to work any more - at least,
not
>>> without a new print head and the price of that seems perilously close to
the
>>> price of a new printer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Is it a clogged print head or some other failure??

I _think_ it's some other failure. After reading about it on the web, I
cleared out all the print nozzles using a can of compressed air spray. It
made a horrible mess but seemed to do the job. Nozzle check print-out
improved after that - _when_ I can get the darned thing to print at all:

The symptoms are:

1) Most often, when I turn it on, I get 7 orange light flashes on the
printer. The manual says this means duff print head. I have managed to fix
this problem on some occasions by removing the head, cleaning the contacts
and then putting it back again. It seems to be getting harder and harder to
fix this one, though.

2) I don't know if you are familiar with the Canon print head alignment
pattern but when I run it, the last column in the second row (I think it's
labelled h) contains NO blocks at all.

3) Printing a colour photo still has a green tinge which, curiously, is
_much_ worse at the top and bottom of the print.

In view of the rather bizarre symptoms I was slightly dubious as to whether
even a new print head would fix everything.

Keith
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 12:37:21 PM

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

>>The biggest fault of the iP6000D is it is VERY slow.
That actually doesn't worry me too much. I'm quite happy to set it to work
printing something then go off and do something else.

I don't have very high volumes of photo print work.

Incidentally, is the ip6000D OK for occasional text output or would you
recommend having a separate text printer?

Keith
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 12:38:23 PM

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

>>No! They are full of knowledge. You see the European version of Canon
>>Printers can print directly on CDs. For some reason Epson and Canon are
>>duking it out in the US; therefore no of the Canons have this feature.

So, as a European (Brit) that could be good news for me.

Keith
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 12:40:21 PM

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

>>You may want to look into Epson printers. I have both Canon and Epson
>>printers and color management is distinctly more reliable with Epson's
print
>>drivers.

I have looked into both. I think my main priority is running costs and I
can get ink cartridges for the Canon (particularly if I am prepared to buy
third party) _much_ cheaper than Epson ink.

I was more than happy with the colour print quality of my previous Canon
(i950).

Keith
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 12:43:35 PM

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

>>You will find that the IP4000, a 5 cart (4 color photo) PIXMA printer is
>>better than the IP6000D in that it can produce better results faster and
>>cheaper and costs around $40.00 less.

I had assumed that the addition of Photo Cyan and Photo Magenta would make a
noticable difference to colour print quality. My old printer had these
extra colours and I didn't want to take a backward step. However I must
admit I have never directly compared output from a 4 colour printer with a 6
colour printer head-to-head. Does anyone have any comments or observations
on how much difference the extra two colours really make?

Keith
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 9:32:06 PM

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

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:37:21 GMT, "Keith Sheppard"
<keith.sheppard@tesco.net> wrote:

>>>The biggest fault of the iP6000D is it is VERY slow.
>That actually doesn't worry me too much. I'm quite happy to set it to work
>printing something then go off and do something else.
>
>I don't have very high volumes of photo print work.
>
>Incidentally, is the ip6000D OK for occasional text output or would you
>recommend having a separate text printer?
>
>Keith
>

Not if you're fussy about the text quality. The iP4000/5000 are better
choices if you need good text and willing to give up a very little on
the photo side.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 9:38:14 PM

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

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:43:35 GMT, "Keith Sheppard"
<keith.sheppard@tesco.net> wrote:

>>>You will find that the IP4000, a 5 cart (4 color photo) PIXMA printer is
>>>better than the IP6000D in that it can produce better results faster and
>>>cheaper and costs around $40.00 less.
>
>I had assumed that the addition of Photo Cyan and Photo Magenta would make a
>noticable difference to colour print quality. My old printer had these
>extra colours and I didn't want to take a backward step. However I must
>admit I have never directly compared output from a 4 colour printer with a 6
>colour printer head-to-head. Does anyone have any comments or observations
>on how much difference the extra two colours really make?
>
>Keith
>
>

From Steves-digicams.com:

iP6000D-The printing quality is on par with Canon's previous 6-color
printers (the i960 and i9100) and uses exactly the same Canon ink
tanks. I hate to sound like a broken record but, the prints from the
iP6000D are the equal of anything that you'd get from the best photo
inkjet printers.

iP4000-There's no doubt that the $499 8-color Canon i9900 printer is
superior but for the vast majority of today's digital camera users who
print mostly 4x6" size prints with the occasional 5x7" or letter-size
print, the $149 iP4000 is going to be more than satisfactory. Looking
at the printed output it's difficult to justify buying a dedicated 6-
or 8-color photo printer, it's amazing what Canon is doing with just
three colors.
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 12:40:43 PM

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

Thanks Oliver, I think ;) 

I thought I'd made up my mind but now you've got me wondering again. I
think for my own peace of mind what I really need to do is get my hands on
two similar pictures printed on the ip4000 and ip6000 so I can see for
myself what the difference is. I wonder if any local (UK) stores might be
able to help.

Keith
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 10:32:05 PM

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

The Canon IP4000 is better than the IP6000D. While you give up the LCD
that is really not the way to edit and print photos, you get a much
faster printer, better photo results and a lot better business documents
and graphic results. It is also about $40.00 cheaper. After rebate at
Frys today you can get one for $100.00. That is a great deal.

Keith Sheppard wrote:

>>>The biggest fault of the iP6000D is it is VERY slow.
>>>
>>>
>That actually doesn't worry me too much. I'm quite happy to set it to work
>printing something then go off and do something else.
>
>I don't have very high volumes of photo print work.
>
>Incidentally, is the ip6000D OK for occasional text output or would you
>recommend having a separate text printer?
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 10:39:32 PM

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

I just observed the following. Adobe Photoshop (PS7 in my case)
supplies a test picture called testpict.tif. I printed this picture
without any editing from PS7 to my Canon IP4000 using Canon OEM inks
and Canon Photopaper Pro. I cannot even conceive of anything being
better. Maybe the i9900 but not with this photo.

This is a professional photo and can really test the best the printer
can do. Get your hands on it, maybe Adobe with send it to you, and buy
some Canon Photo Paper PRo and do some printing at stores who may have a
working model. You be the judge.

Keith Sheppard wrote:

>>>You will find that the IP4000, a 5 cart (4 color photo) PIXMA printer is
>>>better than the IP6000D in that it can produce better results faster and
>>>cheaper and costs around $40.00 less.
>>>
>>>
>
>I had assumed that the addition of Photo Cyan and Photo Magenta would make a
>noticable difference to colour print quality. My old printer had these
>extra colours and I didn't want to take a backward step. However I must
>admit I have never directly compared output from a 4 colour printer with a 6
>colour printer head-to-head. Does anyone have any comments or observations
>on how much difference the extra two colours really make?
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 10:41:47 PM

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

Oliver Costich wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:37:21 GMT, "Keith Sheppard"
><keith.sheppard@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>The biggest fault of the iP6000D is it is VERY slow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>That actually doesn't worry me too much. I'm quite happy to set it to work
>>printing something then go off and do something else.
>>
>>I don't have very high volumes of photo print work.
>>
>>Incidentally, is the ip6000D OK for occasional text output or would you
>>recommend having a separate text printer?
>>
>>Keith
>>
>>
>>
>
>Not if you're fussy about the text quality. The iP4000/5000 are better
>choices if you need good text and willing to give up a very little on
>the photo side.
>
>
The IP4000 photo quality is marginally better than the IP5000 but the
IP5000 business document quality is significantly better than the
IP4000. While I have not heard of head clogs from the IP5000 due to the
1pl drop size, I would look into that.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 12:28:18 AM

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

Oliver Costich wrote:

> The biggest fault of the iP6000D is it is VERY slow.

Really? I hadn't noticed. Of course, this is my first true "photo"
printer, so I don't have much to compare it to.

The manual DOES note, BTW, that the 6000D prints much slower if you're
running in "Quiet mode"... might want to check your settings for that
and anything else that would affect speed.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 1:38:23 PM

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

>>The IP4000 photo quality is marginally better than the IP5000...

Why is that? From reading the specs it looks like the IP5000 should be
better because it has higher resolution. According to the specs I have
read, both printers feature a 5 colour carriage (2 black + 3 colour) with
the IP4000 rated at 4800x1200 resolution and the IP5000 rated at 9600x2400.
I therefore naively assumed that the (more expensive) IP5000 produced better
photo prints - yet you say it's the other way around.

I have narrowed my decision to a straight three-way choice: IP4000, IP5000
and IP6000. I was beginning to get it straight in my mind the pros and cons
of each, but now you've got me all confused again :( 

I want a printer to replace my deceased i950. I was very happy with the
photo quality from that. I don't want to go backwards but I have no
ambitions to improve on the photo quality. I also do a fair amount of text
printing but that is of secondary importance.

Everyone seems to be telling me that the ip4000 is the best thing since
sliced bread. My only concern is that I am going from the 5 colours of my
i950 to just 3 in the ip4000. If the truth of the matter is that I won't
notice then I guess it's not a concern (at least I have fewer ink tanks to
buy if they all run out at once).

Anyone done head to head comparisons of the output from these beasties? I
must have a wander down the high street to see if any of the (UK) shops have
sample output I can compare. Anyone able to recommend a UK retailer who is
good in this department?

Keith
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 1:40:19 PM

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

>>The Canon IP4000 is better than the IP6000D.
Now I'm really confused. The cheaper, 3 colour, ip4000 is _better_ than the
5 colour ip6000D?

Keith
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 12:47:54 AM

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

Keith Sheppard wrote:

>>>The IP4000 photo quality is marginally better than the IP5000...
>>>
>>>
>
>Why is that? From reading the specs it looks like the IP5000 should be
>better because it has higher resolution.
>
For business text and graphics documents. Goto www.pcmag.com and read
the printer comparative reviews.

>According to the specs I have
>read, both printers feature a 5 colour carriage (2 black + 3 colour) with
>the IP4000 rated at 4800x1200 resolution and the IP5000 rated at 9600x2400.
>I therefore naively assumed that the (more expensive) IP5000 produced better
>photo prints - yet you say it's the other way around.
>
>I have narrowed my decision to a straight three-way choice: IP4000, IP5000
>and IP6000. I was beginning to get it straight in my mind the pros and cons
>of each, but now you've got me all confused again :( 
>
>
The ip6000 is for novices who do not want to use a computer to print
their photos. The ip5000 is better than the 6000 and unless your
printing is heavily weighted toward business documents the IP4000 is the
best choice. Read the reviews www.pcmag.com and you will no longer be
confused.

>I want a printer to replace my deceased i950. I was very happy with the
>photo quality from that. I don't want to go backwards but I have no
>ambitions to improve on the photo quality. I also do a fair amount of text
>printing but that is of secondary importance.
>
>Everyone seems to be telling me that the ip4000 is the best thing since
>sliced bread. My only concern is that I am going from the 5 colours of my
>i950 to just 3 in the ip4000. If the truth of the matter is that I won't
>notice then I guess it's not a concern (at least I have fewer ink tanks to
>buy if they all run out at once).
>
>Anyone done head to head comparisons of the output from these beasties? I
>must have a wander down the high street to see if any of the (UK) shops have
>sample output I can compare. Anyone able to recommend a UK retailer who is
>good in this department?
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 12:48:47 AM

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

Without a doubt.

Read comparative reviews www.pcmag.com

Keith Sheppard wrote:

>>>The Canon IP4000 is better than the IP6000D.
>>>
>>>
>Now I'm really confused. The cheaper, 3 colour, ip4000 is _better_ than the
>5 colour ip6000D?
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 9:16:44 AM

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

measekite wrote:
>
> The ip6000 is for novices who do not want to use a computer to print
> their photos.

That's a tad narrow-minded of you. How about, the iP6000D is useful for
instances when you want to print and have no computer available. Like I
did recently at a "Show & Shine" my friend's car club held.
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 5:44:42 PM

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

For most people the trade off is not worth it when compared to the
IP4000. A somewhat worse photo result. Slower! Significantly worse
business and text document. $50 more money. No dye black so you use
more color ink to print black. And finally you have to support 6 ink
cartridges getting very little from it. Maybe some better shading on a
few photos.

No, the vast majority of people who just want to print with not computer
are novices. Maybe you are the rare exception.

Matt Ion wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>> The ip6000 is for novices who do not want to use a computer to print
>> their photos.
>
>
> That's a tad narrow-minded of you. How about, the iP6000D is useful
> for instances when you want to print and have no computer available.
> Like I did recently at a "Show & Shine" my friend's car club held.
!