I wanted to buy the new Canon i9100 photo printer when I realized that it dispenses 4 picoliter ink droplets while the i950 dispenses 2 picoliter droplets.
Does this make a difference in the quality of the prints?
I would like being able to print in 13 x 19 format, but I want the highest quality possible at the same time. If there is a difference in print quality, I could wait for a 2 picoliter 13 x 19 printer.
Pierre,
I tried this query a while back and got no response here. Maybe try posting on the Canon board or the Pro Digi board. Your question is part of the answer I was looking for with regards to the droplet size, but I unfortunately don't know how that actually translates to print quality.
I just purchased an i950 because of both the cheaper price and the 2 picoliter drop size. A Canon Rep at the local Fry's Electronics store mentioned that the 4 pico liter drop size on the i9100 is due to the price and difficulty of manufacturing the wide carriage. He mentions that the i950 actually has sharper prints when compared to the i9100.
When I was first looking at the i9100, his first questions was, "do you really need to print larger sizes?" "How often do you print larger sizes?"
In my case, I don't really need it and will probably hardly ever do it. And if the i950 is both cheaper and produces sharper prints, then I'll stick with the i950.
So far, the prints are great and I am very satisfied.
roblumba wrote:
I just purchased an i950 because of both the cheaper price and the 2 picoliter drop size. A Canon Rep at the local Fry's Electronics store mentioned that the 4 pico liter drop size on the i9100 is due to the price and difficulty of manufacturing the wide carriage. He mentions that the i950 actually has sharper prints when compared to the i9100.
When I was first looking at the i9100, his first questions was, "do you really need to print larger sizes?" "How often do you print larger sizes?"
In my case, I don't really need it and will probably hardly ever do it. And if the i950 is both cheaper and produces sharper prints, then I'll stick with the i950.
So far, the prints are great and I am very satisfied.
The I950 is a great printer for the price ($250 USD), but just remember that it's not an archival ink printer. Get 2-3 years on the photo, than have to reshoot.....
2-3 years before reprinting (not reshooting)... are you certain?
Are some others really better in terms of longevity?
Pierre
The I950 is a great printer for the price ($250 USD), but just remember that it's not an archival ink printer. Get 2-3 years on the photo, than have to reshoot.....
Canon gaurantees 25 years with their paper. Canon R&D researched longetivity when using Canon Inks with Canon Photo Paper. They gaurantee 25 years when using Canon Ink with Canon Photo Paper.
They do not gaurantee Canon Ink with Epson Paper.
Neither does Epson Gaurantee Epson Ink, with Canon Photo Paper.
As a side note, Epson's paper and Ink are both third party. Epson doesn't even have an R&D department. All this is outsourced from Third Party Companies. In comparison, Canon's R&D is done by Canon. Their ink, paper and printers are 100% Canon.
Epson paper, printer and ink are not 100% Epson.
Mike,
Is this documented info? I have seen some claim that the Epson archival claims are overblown. I have also seen some claim that the Canon stats are understated (seems unlikely) but in any case, someone must have done some unbiased testing of the archival claims that these companies make. I seem to emember seeing a 25 year claim associated with the Canon somewhere, but all claims of archival quality are suspiciously absent from the Canon USA web pages on these two printers.
Water resistant, light resistant up to 27 years with Epson ColorLife™ Photo Paper³ "
Looks like it is only gauranteed with Epson Colorlife paper. I wonder what that means for all those people using a variety of different papers? And how much does this ColorLife paper cost?
I also noticed the Canon site mentions nothing about a gaurantee on logentivity. I will check with Canon Support and post the answer here.
Ross Peterson wrote:
Mike,
Is this documented info? I have seen some claim that the Epson archival claims are overblown. I have also seen some claim that the Canon stats are understated (seems unlikely) but in any case, someone must have done some unbiased testing of the archival claims that these companies make. I seem to emember seeing a 25 year claim associated with the Canon somewhere, but all claims of archival quality are suspiciously absent from the Canon USA web pages on these two printers.
Ross, I haven't seen any 'official' claims stating a 2-3 years type thing, but, in many posts I've read about the printer, seems to convincingly talk about it as if it's an open question/issue. Yup, I've read the 25 year thing, as well.
Guess I'll have to see in 2-3 years how my prints look
January 28th Update, This is Bill Waterson's point of view on ultraviolet light and ink jet print fading. "Canon Photo Paper Pro will fade 30% at about 4,285 hours of exposure to my fluorescent lamps of 6,300 lux per hour. This equates to a longevity of 27 years. ......bla bla bla.....
Those results show Epson as ahead in the longetivity race. Especially with their Ultrachrome Inks. But with their less expensive printers on regular paper, it is not nearly as long. In some cases close to Canon logetivity.
Perhaps in many cases, we'll be swapping the pictures on the walls for newer ones that give our home a nice new look. The those extra special pictures are going to need extra attention to give them the longer life (e.g. Ultrachrome Inks, Special Coatings, Framing, etc).
IMO, most of the above replies are excrementary (sp? )
Buy the i950 and print yourself happy. You can get a lab to do the big prints when you are ready to see how those work, and get the advantage vs. your 8"x10" about print quality. In the mean time, unless you are some god's gift to photography and have as much wall space as the god of walls, there just aren't going to be that many opportunities to print and display stuff over 8"x10", which is about as big as a standing frame will properly stand. If you just need to know how it all scales when you are in charge, 2000P's, which were the bestest in class only two years ago, are selling for very cheap, and they can make very nice looking 13" x 19" prints.
In my book, unless you already understand matting and framing, talking about a wide carriage is purely a shutterbug ego thing. Large prints are wall hangers, period. Gee, I've yet to have ANYONE looking at one of my prints wonder how many picoliters were involved. If picoliters trip your trigger, then ignore me. I happen to believe in what I see, and I can't imagine anyone ever regretting the purchase of an i950 considering how fast and cheap it is. I've well over 15,000 prints out of mine, to the point that $180 street price is completely irrelevant, and despite the fact that it's "that cheap little printer" as soon as MediaStreet gets their act together on the continuous ink system, I will buy another look it like a Borg tubed into center stage on one of the Star Trek shows. (Continuous ink systems and the back of the truck for event photography are something I'm still chicken about, refilling from half liter bottles ahead of time meets my sanitary needs.)
Like any inkjet printer, if it hasn't been set about serious business for 48 hours, it's best to get the ink flowing well before sticking in the expensive media and laying down some heavy ink.
Seriously, buy the i950, make some prints, think and amortize your thoughts of 13"x19" against the reality of the print cost and size and then do what most photographers seem to do and leave prints laying around in some box, and consider the framing aspect.
You will come back to Epson for wall hangers unless Canon answers more questions, and if you regret the i950 in the mean time and it still works, I'm lookin' for some lightly used i950's. So far the ultimate event printer.
