In looking at these two printers, I am curious what people here find are the main differences between owning these two.
Print quality comparable?
Ink usage and prices?
Usability?
I am not a pro user, so it will not be run every day, but probably 2 times a week....how does this factor into the equation?
Paper options as far as non-OEM products?
What about non-OEM ink?
Any general thoughts on the two would be appreciated. I have read both manufactures sites and really think that I could go either way. I have always got very useful information here from the members, so I am polling now to make my final decision.
Based upon my own research a few weeks ago, print quality is pretty similar between the two, although with the Epson you do get the longer lasting Pigment inks.
Sounds like we're in a pretty similar situation. I chose the Pro9000 because I don't sell any prints (no real longevity concerns), and the ink usage is well below that of the Epson (so I read). So far I've printed a few 11x14s, 8x10s, and several 5x7s and all of my cartridges still show 100% and look just as full as when I put them in. If that's any indication, I don't expect to have to replace the cartridges nearly as often as I originally thought.
Not to mention, when the time does come to replace the cartridges, an 8-pack via Amazon is only $65 with free shipping...Not bad. As far as Non-OEM ink, I've never used them so I can't comment.
Oh yeah, so far I've been printing solely on Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl Paper and have loved the results. I hope to pick up some Matte paper soon and have no reason to suspect those prints won't turn out with great quality as well, so long I get the settings right.
I found someone locally and bought a NIB Pro9000 for $250.00! He bought it to get the rebate on the 5D and he just wanted to dump it for some cash to offset his purchase. Ebay has several going for about the same dollars......felt that this was a pretty darn good deal for this caliber of printer.
I have been printing some 8x10, 11x13 and 5x7 photos this evening using CS3 with the Easy photo print pro plugin from Canon on some Canon paper. I am very satisfied with the results. Side by side with my Costco prints and from my older Epson printer, there is a very noticeable difference. Much more detail in the darker elements and great color too. The plug-in also makes getting realistic photo colors even though my monitor is not 100%.
Sorry for the crowing, but I feel good when I get something right (with a little help from FM of course)
Matte papers in general, as dye ink printers, such as the Canon 9000 are optimised for glossy, i.e. resin-coated papers. Although dye ink printers can generally be used on matte/fine art papers, those wishing to produce such prints typically use pigment ink printers.
I read a few reviews that gave the 9000 very high marks for matte or "photo rag" papers...I will see for myself this weekend. Going back through the archives for some of my favorites to reprint.
It is my understanding that the new dye inks are just as long lived as pigments.(or at least 100 years, and beyond that I don't care ) I have a very accomplished friend who uses a 9000 and has printed two prints for me on Canon art paper. They are phenomenal!
My $0.02
I recently upgraded to a Pro9000 after reading through tons of reviews. Went with the Canon for a few reasons. (1). Upgraded from a i960 which I still use but believe I was finally having some color issues in my prints. (2). love the colors that come off canon printers and had clogging problems with prior Epsons, (3). price. Amazon $406 and got a $100 rebate and (4) full set of Claria 8 ink cartridges paid $61 on Amazon and rated to last a lot longer then I'll be around.
Also just purchased a package of the Canon 13x19 paper that gives 4 types of paper that includes rag and museum etching. Expect the output to be everything I hope and reviewed to be. Have also printed some matte 8x10 and they are just way better than I could put out on the i960.
Dye ink is best on glossy paper. Pigment ink is best on textured (non glossy) paper. If you want to print on textured paper Canon has the Pro9500 for you. I like glossy and use the Pro9000.
I just printed an image on Canon's 8x10 photo rag fine art paper and the depth of detail and color is on par with and I actually, with my wifes agreement, believe the color saturation to be slightly better than the gloss.
Of course I will do a few more, but I am very pleased with this printer right now.....
No. Dye inks can last up to 75 to 100 years and pigment inks from 75 to 200 years. So both can be considered archival but pigments will last longer. Of course, this is all based on accelerated testing and very specific storage methods and proprietary inks on proprietary papers.
It does, however, appear that dye inks are improving in many ways. I note though, that Epson, Canon and HP exclusively use pigment inks in all of their high end and professional printers. Dye inks are reserved for the consumer level printers.
That's what I thought, although I thought of dye prints more in the 5 to 20 year time frame, rather than 75. As you suggest, this is all Wilhelm's extrapolation any way. Given that the pro printing industry has moved away from dye as you say, one wonders how much r&d continues to go on in the dye improvement area.
Dye inks have improved by leaps and bounds but they still have their best life on certain papers. The poster who is using the Canon printer with Ilford Smooth Pearl should really be using Ilford Classic Pearl, a swellable polymer base which is what dye inks need. Wilhelm did a test with the HP Deskjet 130 where with the proscribed HP paper he found a "printlife" of 75 years, when he substituted a big box store glossy paper the life expectancy was 6 months. I used to print commercially with dye inks and paper choice was critical, one paper, said it was compatible with dye inks, the black lasted less than a month, by 2 months it was green. Dye inks are just more sensitive to paper base. I have prints on a Kodak Professional Gloss and Mitsubishi Heavyweight gloss that are lasting very well, have 5 year old prints on Epson FA Velvet that look like they are beginning to fade. My worst experience was when a canvas I was using was discontinued, my supplier sent me a different canvas just before a big job, 4 roll of canvas, had to reprint it all because the canvas was fading in less than 3 months. The supplier wouldn't replace the material, had to finally buy a canvas used for Iris printers (also dye based) that was more than twice the cost of the original. This worked well. So choose your paper well for dye printers.
BTW the ink I was using was Pinnacle Gold considered the first long lasting dye ink, probably equivalent to the current Canon dyes, but not HP or Epson.
I think the dye inks can be a good choice for the casual home printer who prints 4x6, 5x7 and 8x10 primarily and isn't interested in longevity and selling prints and therefore customer satisfaction. Since that's probably 80-90% of people who buy photo printers, I suspect there's quite a bit of research going on. That's reflected in the dye inks now being rated up to 100 years, although that's only with the latest printers, ink chemistry and papers.
At this point, pigment inks appear to be the best choice (only choice) for those that do the other kind of printing, at least in relatively small volumes. If you need to make hundreds or thousands of copies, you still need to go to a commercial printer and as Tom has indicated, they may in some cases (all cases?) use dye inks.
Whenever I see photographs for sale in art galleries, they almost always indicate the type of paper (printed on Hahnemuhle archival paper) used and sometimes the type of printer and inks as wll, as selling points. I guess they want to reassure prospective buyers of $2000 prints that they won't fade in 2 years!!
I agree with the post regarding the two types of Ilford paper.....Classic for dye inks and Smooth for pigments. The funny thing is that the camera shop near my house is fairly esoteric (read spendy) and carries tons of new and used high end stuff. When I was checking his shelves for the Classic paper he said that he pulled it all because no one he knows that is serious about prints uses dye inks anymore. He did however have quite a bit of stock in back that he sold me very very cheaply just to git rid of it.....8x10 100 pack for $20.00 for example.....I jumped all over it. Way more that I can use short term, but I am thinking that the shelf life for this paper has to be pretty good if it stays sealed....any thoughts on this?
The latest generation of Canon Dye inks has to be much better than the previous generation (Canon i9950) etc. I just could not believe that this printer which was marketed as a "professional" printer just 3 years ago, could produce such fading of prints. This printer was even showcased at a wedding photography workshop that I attended with Canon Reps showing what outstanding prints this printer could do. True...but they don't last! Last night I opened up an old album with some dance photos I took 2 years ago and printed on the Canon i9950 Dye printer on Canon paper and Canon ink. There was much noticeable fading and these prints had not seen daylight since the day they were printed. At the time I did all that printing I didn't take any heed to the warnings that people gave about fading. Never believe the "official" fade times.Accelerated testing can never duplicate long-term fading issues. I just couldn't believe that Canon would produce a "professional" product with results that only lasted 1-2 years. I have no one to blame but myself for my ignorance. Since then I have out-sourced most of my printing to professsional labs. I do have an Epson R1800 now that I like a lot. Canon had to up-grade their dye inks which they have done, but it was a necessity not a luxury!
) I have a very accomplished friend who uses a 9000 and has printed two prints for me on Canon art paper. They are phenomenal!