Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon i9900, any good?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 10:30:47 AM

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

I am in need of a new printer for photo printing. I have a 20D and
every so often I would like to print some photos out at a larger size
like 13X19. The Canon i9900 seems like a good printer for this
purpose. I was wondering if anyone has experience ( good or bad ) with
this printer, or any other printer recommendations.


Woggy(tm)

More about : canon i9900 good

Anonymous
March 31, 2005 7:27:44 PM

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

In article <1112279447.859594.295810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Woggy_tm <Woggy_tm@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am in need of a new printer for photo printing. I have a 20D and
>every so often I would like to print some photos out at a larger size
>like 13X19. The Canon i9900 seems like a good printer for this
>purpose. I was wondering if anyone has experience ( good or bad ) with
>this printer, or any other printer recommendations.

I just replaced my Epson 1290 with a Canon i9950 (I'm pretty sure that's the
same printer as the i9900), and am over the Moon. The quality is
dramaticlaly better than the Epson, especially in dark red areas, and damn,
this thing is *fast*.
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 8:52:58 PM

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

On 3/31/05 8:30 AM, in article
1112279447.859594.295810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, "Woggy_tm"
<Woggy_tm@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am in need of a new printer for photo printing. I have a 20D and
> every so often I would like to print some photos out at a larger size
> like 13X19. The Canon i9900 seems like a good printer for this
> purpose. I was wondering if anyone has experience ( good or bad ) with
> this printer, or any other printer recommendations.
>
>
> Woggy(tm)
>
It is a *very* good printer! I print everything from 4x6 up to 13x19 and
always get good results. This assumes, of course, that you have enough
pixels in your image to print the larger sizes with adequate resolution.
I also have the opportunity to frequently use an Epson 2200 and do not find
one any better than the other - both are good printers. The prints from the
Epson, with the pigment ink, may look better 25 years from now - but that is
not a primary concern of mine. If print speed is a factor in your decision
the i9900 is *much* faster.
Chuck
Related resources
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 10:47:52 PM

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

It is my understanding that in this price class, it is the BEST of the
BEST. It has been know to produce the very best results and it is the
fastest as well.

The only other choice is the new Epson R1800 but that printer is over
$150 more and costs more to run. Since the inks are pigmented, the
results are less vibrant but may have greater longevity if not taken
care of. People that sell their prints might want to consider the Epson
since you would loose control over how the picture is taken care of.

Woggy_tm wrote:

> I am in need of a new printer for photo printing. I have a 20D and
>every so often I would like to print some photos out at a larger size
>like 13X19. The Canon i9900 seems like a good printer for this
>purpose. I was wondering if anyone has experience ( good or bad ) with
>this printer, or any other printer recommendations.
>
>
>Woggy(tm)
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 12:58:01 AM

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

Feed this printer with the right paper, colour profile etc. it will produce
brilliant results. As a bonus its dam fast and much more economical than
Epson (and I love Epson too). I wouldn't be without my i9950 aka i9900
without the cd print option.

John D

"Woggy_tm" <Woggy_tm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112279447.859594.295810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I am in need of a new printer for photo printing. I have a 20D and
> every so often I would like to print some photos out at a larger size
> like 13X19. The Canon i9900 seems like a good printer for this
> purpose. I was wondering if anyone has experience ( good or bad ) with
> this printer, or any other printer recommendations.
>
>
> Woggy(tm)
>
April 1, 2005 1:44:54 AM

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

measekite wrote:

> It is my understanding that in this price class, it is the BEST of the
> BEST. It has been know to produce the very best results and it is the
> fastest as well.
>
> The only other choice is the new Epson R1800 but that printer is over
> $150 more and costs more to run.


If I take one more step up, do the Epsons become more affordable to
operate with larger ink tanks?



> Since the inks are pigmented, the
> results are less vibrant but may have greater longevity if not taken
> care of. People that sell their prints might want to consider the Epson
> since you would loose control over how the picture is taken care of.
>
> Woggy_tm wrote:
>
>> I am in need of a new printer for photo printing. I have a 20D and
>> every so often I would like to print some photos out at a larger size
>> like 13X19. The Canon i9900 seems like a good printer for this
>> purpose. I was wondering if anyone has experience ( good or bad ) with
>> this printer, or any other printer recommendations.
>>
>>
>> Woggy(tm)
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 2:20:39 AM

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

Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

> In article <1112279447.859594.295810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Woggy_tm <Woggy_tm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I am in need of a new printer for photo printing. I have a 20D and
>>every so often I would like to print some photos out at a larger size
>>like 13X19. The Canon i9900 seems like a good printer for this
>>purpose. I was wondering if anyone has experience ( good or bad )
>>with this printer, or any other printer recommendations.
>
> I just replaced my Epson 1290 with a Canon i9950 (I'm pretty sure
> that's the same printer as the i9900), and am over the Moon. The
> quality is dramaticlaly better than the Epson, especially in dark red
> areas, and damn, this thing is *fast*.
>
Unfortunately they fade fast, too. Pretty while they last. The people at
Canon don't think that anyone outside of Japan deserves a chance to use the
more archival inks that come with the i9900 there.
April 1, 2005 3:21:55 AM

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

Woggy_tm wrote:

> I am in need of a new printer for photo printing. I have a 20D and
> every so often I would like to print some photos out at a larger size
> like 13X19. The Canon i9900 seems like a good printer for this
> purpose. I was wondering if anyone has experience ( good or bad ) with
> this printer, or any other printer recommendations.
>


The only negative thing I can say is the supplied ICM profiles aren't very
good. Buy this printer, spend the $40 extra to have a custom printer
profile made (I used cathy's profiles and am happy) and you'll be AMAZED at
what this thing can produce. I'm printing on Ilfords classic pearl and the
results are outstanding. It has an amazing color gamut and prints really
fast as well. Also I'm impressed with the number of prints per ink refill.
If the canned profiles were better, I'd say it's perfect..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 10:33:55 AM

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

I print a lot of 11x14's on mine and am very happy. I primarily use Ilford
Classic Pearl paper. I've downloaded the color profile for the paper off
Ilford's site. The ink cartridges coudn't be easier to replace, and the
sensor for ink levels (how soon you need to replace) works nicely - which is
important. Don't use curled paper! Canon Photo paper plus glossy is the
way to go when you don't use Ilford.
LP

"Woggy_tm" <Woggy_tm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112279447.859594.295810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I am in need of a new printer for photo printing. I have a 20D and
> every so often I would like to print some photos out at a larger size
> like 13X19. The Canon i9900 seems like a good printer for this
> purpose. I was wondering if anyone has experience ( good or bad ) with
> this printer, or any other printer recommendations.
>
>
> Woggy(tm)
>
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 12:05:14 PM

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

Stacey wrote:
> Woggy_tm wrote:
>
>
>> I am in need of a new printer for photo printing. I have a 20D and
>>every so often I would like to print some photos out at a larger size
>>like 13X19. The Canon i9900 seems like a good printer for this
>>purpose. I was wondering if anyone has experience ( good or bad ) with
>>this printer, or any other printer recommendations.
>>
>
>
>
> The only negative thing I can say is the supplied ICM profiles aren't very
> good. Buy this printer, spend the $40 extra to have a custom printer
> profile made (I used cathy's profiles and am happy) and you'll be AMAZED at
> what this thing can produce. I'm printing on Ilfords classic pearl and the
> results are outstanding. It has an amazing color gamut and prints really
> fast as well. Also I'm impressed with the number of prints per ink refill.
> If the canned profiles were better, I'd say it's perfect..
>

It doesn't come with profiles for Ilford paper, so why do you say the supplied
profiles aren't very good? Or do you mean the profiles supplied by Ilford?

Ben
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 4:05:55 PM

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

In article <1112279447.859594.295810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Woggy_tm" <Woggy_tm@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am in need of a new printer for photo printing. I have a 20D and
> every so often I would like to print some photos out at a larger size
> like 13X19. The Canon i9900 seems like a good printer for this
> purpose. I was wondering if anyone has experience ( good or bad ) with
> this printer, or any other printer recommendations.
>
>
I've had the Canon 6100i A3 printer for a little over a year and am VERY
happy with it. My previous printer - Epson Stylus 950 - was either
clogging or running out of ink and those 7 carts were not cheap. The
6100 runs extremely well and I've no problems with it so far - except
for the driver, I have to set up the printing preferences every time I
start up, however this could be because I'm using an iMac.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 4:47:55 PM

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

"LarryLOOK" <anonlmp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5bKdnZrY-YMurNDfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> I print a lot of 11x14's on mine and am very happy. I primarily use
Ilford
> Classic Pearl paper. I've downloaded the color profile for the paper off
> Ilford's site. The ink cartridges coudn't be easier to replace, and the
> sensor for ink levels (how soon you need to replace) works nicely - which
is
> important. Don't use curled paper! Canon Photo paper plus glossy is the
> way to go when you don't use Ilford.
> LP

I agree this printer works well with Ilford paper. Have you tried the Smooth
Pearl? if so what are the differences if any?

John D
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 4:47:56 PM

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

"John DH" <nospammJohn@celticgods.co.uknospamm> wrote in message
news:D 2jcde$95b$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "LarryLOOK" <anonlmp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5bKdnZrY-YMurNDfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> > I print a lot of 11x14's on mine and am very happy. I primarily use
> Ilford
> > Classic Pearl paper. I've downloaded the color profile for the paper
off
> > Ilford's site. The ink cartridges coudn't be easier to replace, and the
> > sensor for ink levels (how soon you need to replace) works nicely -
which
> is
> > important. Don't use curled paper! Canon Photo paper plus glossy is
the
> > way to go when you don't use Ilford.
> > LP
>
> I agree this printer works well with Ilford paper. Have you tried the
Smooth
> Pearl? if so what are the differences if any?
>
> John D

Bought some on a recommendation, but haven't tried it yet. Hopefully others
will comment. Heard somewhere, maybe classic pearl is more long lasting?
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 5:27:47 PM

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

On the Ilford site, Ilford say that the Classic is more resistant to fading
and more light stable than the Smooth Pearl. Thinking of trying the Classic
myself, the Smooth Pearl is v.good but classic might be better. I would like
to hear your opinion when you have had the chance to do a comparison

Cheers

John D


> Bought some on a recommendation, but haven't tried it yet. Hopefully
others
> will comment. Heard somewhere, maybe classic pearl is more long lasting?
>
>
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 7:08:21 PM

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

"larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote in message
news:MKKdndP8gJASqNDfRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>
> "John DH" <nospammJohn@celticgods.co.uknospamm> wrote in message
> news:D 2jcde$95b$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "LarryLOOK" <anonlmp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:5bKdnZrY-YMurNDfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>> > I print a lot of 11x14's on mine and am very happy. I primarily use
>> Ilford
>> > Classic Pearl paper. I've downloaded the color profile for the paper
> off
>> > Ilford's site. The ink cartridges coudn't be easier to replace, and
>> > the
>> > sensor for ink levels (how soon you need to replace) works nicely -
> which
>> is
>> > important. Don't use curled paper! Canon Photo paper plus glossy is
> the
>> > way to go when you don't use Ilford.
>> > LP
>>
>> I agree this printer works well with Ilford paper. Have you tried the
> Smooth
>> Pearl? if so what are the differences if any?
>>
>> John D
>
> Bought some on a recommendation, but haven't tried it yet. Hopefully
> others
> will comment. Heard somewhere, maybe classic pearl is more long lasting?
>
>
The smooth is designed for pigmented inks, the Classic is for dye based
inks, at least that's my understanding. The Smooth papers come with a
sticker that states they are compatible with the Epson 2200.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 1:42:46 PM

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

On the box, Ilford say that Smooth is compatible with both inks, but,
reading the specs on their web site the classic may be better. In fact for
longevity it is. There maybe some differences in the wording on the
packaging between the US and the UK, for instance, in the UK there is no
sticker about the Epson 2200. When my stocks need toping up I will be
including the Classic and do a head to head comparison.

John D

> The smooth is designed for pigmented inks, the Classic is for dye based
> inks, at least that's my understanding. The Smooth papers come with a
> sticker that states they are compatible with the Epson 2200.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
>
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 1:42:47 PM

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

I guess I should have said "biased" rather than "designed."
I pretty much stick to Classic, it gives superb results on my 9000.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"John DH" <nospammJohn@celticgods.co.uknospamm> wrote in message
news:D 2llua$tb2$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> On the box, Ilford say that Smooth is compatible with both inks, but,
> reading the specs on their web site the classic may be better. In fact for
> longevity it is. There maybe some differences in the wording on the
> packaging between the US and the UK, for instance, in the UK there is no
> sticker about the Epson 2200. When my stocks need toping up I will be
> including the Classic and do a head to head comparison.
>
> John D
>
>> The smooth is designed for pigmented inks, the Classic is for dye based
>> inks, at least that's my understanding. The Smooth papers come with a
>> sticker that states they are compatible with the Epson 2200.
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 7:19:25 AM

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

Bubbabob wrote:

>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>In article <1112279447.859594.295810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>>Woggy_tm <Woggy_tm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I am in need of a new printer for photo printing. I have a 20D and
>>>every so often I would like to print some photos out at a larger size
>>>like 13X19. The Canon i9900 seems like a good printer for this
>>>purpose. I was wondering if anyone has experience ( good or bad )
>>>with this printer, or any other printer recommendations.
>>>
>>>
>>I just replaced my Epson 1290 with a Canon i9950 (I'm pretty sure
>>that's the same printer as the i9900), and am over the Moon. The
>>quality is dramaticlaly better than the Epson, especially in dark red
>>areas, and damn, this thing is *fast*.
>>
>>
>>
>Unfortunately they fade fast, too. Pretty while they last. The people at
>Canon don't think that anyone outside of Japan deserves a chance to use the
>more archival inks that come with the i9900 there.
>
>

After it is fully tested it will be here. For now take care of your
prints. Mine have not faded.
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 1:40:51 AM

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

measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:


>
> After it is fully tested it will be here. For now take care of your
> prints. Mine have not faded.

I assume that BCE-7 is fully tested already (as fully as Canon ever bothers
to test, anyway) as it is what you get when you buy an i9900 in Japan.

One should not have to encase prints in plastic or hide them in a box to
keep them from going off in three weeks like Canon prints will do in my
work environment or in 3 months as they do in my home environment.
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 9:32:39 PM

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

measekite wrote:
> LarryLOOK wrote:
>
> >I print a lot of 11x14's on mine and am very happy. I primarily use
Ilford
> >Classic Pearl paper. I've downloaded the color profile for the
paper off
> >Ilford's site. The ink cartridges coudn't be easier to replace, and
the
> >sensor for ink levels (how soon you need to replace) works nicely -
which is
> >important. Don't use curled paper! Canon Photo paper plus glossy
is the
> >way to go when you don't use Ilford.
> >
> >
>
> How about Canon Photo Paper Pro?

I've heard the difference isn't worth the extra price, but this is 3rd
hand info, so perhaps others can comment? I had bad result colorwise
with hp premium, plus it was curled and picked up black marks.
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 12:49:49 AM

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

LarryLOOK wrote:

>I print a lot of 11x14's on mine and am very happy. I primarily use Ilford
>Classic Pearl paper. I've downloaded the color profile for the paper off
>Ilford's site. The ink cartridges coudn't be easier to replace, and the
>sensor for ink levels (how soon you need to replace) works nicely - which is
>important. Don't use curled paper! Canon Photo paper plus glossy is the
>way to go when you don't use Ilford.
>
>

How about Canon Photo Paper Pro?

>LP
>
>"Woggy_tm" <Woggy_tm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1112279447.859594.295810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> I am in need of a new printer for photo printing. I have a 20D and
>>every so often I would like to print some photos out at a larger size
>>like 13X19. The Canon i9900 seems like a good printer for this
>>purpose. I was wondering if anyone has experience ( good or bad ) with
>>this printer, or any other printer recommendations.
>>
>>
>>Woggy(tm)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 1:30:52 PM

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

In article <1112661159.526281.70120@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
larrylook <lmpmd@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>measekite wrote:
>>
>> How about Canon Photo Paper Pro?
>
>I've heard the difference isn't worth the extra price, but this is 3rd
>hand info, so perhaps others can comment?

I bought some to try yesterday, and so far the advantage over the cheaper
glossy, or the stack of Epson Preium Glossy I have lying around, doesn't
seem to be worth the extra cost. YMMV.
!