|
|
marko1953
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 29, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 695
|
|
Review Date: Jul 8, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent print quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Fading and clogging of print head.
|
|
I bought the Canon i9950 in Australia to do on-site sports printing. I read all the reviews and it didn't take me long to be totally amazed at the print qaulity. The reviews were right! the prints were stunning. I really used this printer a lot at sports carnivals, it was fast. One thing, I had to use non genuine ink after a while. I could not afford to pay more than the price of French Champagne for the cartridged (per ml)!. I found a company here who sell 125ml ink bottles for the price of 2 Canon cartridges. I leaned to refill my cartridges for a fraction of the cost.I continued to print my heart out until I started to get banding from a clogged printhead. To cut a long story short I ended up getting the printhead replaced at a cost of about one half of the original printer cost. Was it because of the non-genuine inks? I don't know. After another 10 months of printing the same thing happened again. . This was a great printer, until I noticed the prints started to fade after about 4 months. I was warned about this but tended to ignore such warnings because of the superb print quality. The prints that I had under glass were still OK, but those exposed to the air faded badly.I am now looking at another printer to print my dance photo proofs sheets (A3).I am now looking at maybe the Canon pro 9000 or an Epsom R2400. The i9950, what a pity about the fading.
|
|
 Jul 8, 2007
|
|
ravix
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 1, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 218
|
|
Review Date: May 21, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
The prints (usually) look amazing. Black and white images don't appear toned. It is fast and quiet.
|
|
Cons:
|
Dye-based ink. Non-standard paper sizes supported by drivers. "Track Lines" appear on the prints.
|
|
As a dedicated amateur, I bought this printer to provide friends and family with prints. I've been fairly disappointed with my results. The prints often show physical grooves on the paper from the tracks of the printer and sometimes drops of ink show up on my images. These imperfections are especially frustrating when they appear on a 13"x19" print that cost me a moderate amount in both paper and ink.
When the prints turn out they look amazing. But I've had this printer for over a year now and the first prints out of it are already starting to fade.
I wish I'd gone Epson. 
|
|
|
May 21, 2007
|
|
busterboy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 77
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Stunning colours, supports A3 and A3+
Results alone sold me this printer.
|
|
Cons:
|
none.
|
|
I think all has been said already about this stunning printer.
I have used and recommended Epson printers over the last 10 years but due to clogging print heads and banding turned my eye to change.
The very first print I saw from one of these printers had me sold, I read the reviews and bought one the very next day and can only praise its incredible results.
I use nothing but genuine Canon BCI 6 carts and use Canon PR-101 Super High Gloss paper in this printer and cannot give it anything but 10/10 with my vote.
Stunning results and the finished product has to be seen to be believed.
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2007
|
|
Ed Cucci
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 18, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 39
|
|
Review Date: Nov 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
See below
|
|
Cons:
|
See below
|
|
Actually, I'm trying to post a review of the Canon Pro 9000 printer but there seems to be no way to create a review for a product thats not already here.
Am I missing something? Any help is appreciated. I look back here for some instructions.
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2006
|
|
SAUMBI
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 33
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $359.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb looking prints, the bigger I print the better they look!! I can buy all 8 tanks for what most pay for other brands.
|
|
Cons:
|
????????? Is ther any? Well maybe they say prints wont last, I have not experienced this yet!
|
|
I am also the owner of the canon i960, I have used that printer for over 2 years now and have not had any prints fade in any way on me yet. I must say that until I started using konica pro gloss and satin and using the canon pro paper print properties I never new what photo lab quality this printer or the other was capable of. the i960 also uses the same ink cartridge as the i9900, the i9900 simply uses a green and red cartridge that the i960 dosn't use. I also have for the past year and a half been using after market cartridges that both suppliers gauranty to be fresh and give a two year shelf life, I have yet to see a difference in the factory canon prints or the ones i have printed with the aftermarket, and when I bought my i9900, i ordered 3 sets of cartridges 24 total and paid less than $33.00 including shipping. Lets see you beet that, and if you do I want to see prints that are as bright sharp and contrasty as the prints from the i960 or the i9900. THEY CANNOT BE BEET!! PERIOD!! If they start to fade after 4, 5, 8, 10 years, well then I'll reprint them and enjoy the best looking prints you can creat on a home computer and printer!!
I bought an epson after using the i960 for about 6 months because of what I read about archieval inks and it only took 4 days to get it back and get my money back. If it would have equaled the i960 I would have kept it for the longer lasting lip rap I've heard, but the truth is it wasn't.
For the last 8 months the i9900 has been what I use the most, the first 13x19 print blew me away, I couldn"t believe, me, an ameture, could print a large print that I would have been suprised at the quality if I had had it professionally printed, could do with this printer. I now am torn between which printer to use, and mostly use the i960 for 4x6 and 5x7 and the i9900 for 8x10 11x17 and 13x19 and cannot believe I could be happier with any printer reguardless of the price. The i9900 does as good a job with smaller prints as the i960, its just that it is also so good that I have to print something with it so my wife dosent tell me that I dont need it and tell me to sell it.
don't believe the bull you hear about ink quality and believe me quality of my prints is top priority with me, just buy one of these and try it for yourself. I buy the very best photo paper money can buy and and if one day I can see a photo starting to fade or change color I'll gladly spend $2.00 and reprint it to have the sharpest looking prints one could have and think nothing of it. That is actualy more than the 13x19 cost me to print it ink and paper. time will only tell when that day will come.
to sum it up, buy one and thank me later, I have a lot of freinds who have changed their printer brands and thanked me. you will too, if canon comes out with their new printer and ink we have all heard about I will probably be one of the first to try it but I wont get rid of either of these printers till they prove there worth and repeatability for some time!!! IT DOSENT GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS, IT'S A CANON, THAT SHOULD SAY IT ALL!!!
Sorry for being so long winded but I hope this helps some of you with your decision and assure you over 1000 prints with so many different papers and inks I'VE DONE MY HOMEWORK SO I CAN ASSURE YOU MOST ARE STILL GEUSSING!! I'M NOT!!! this is one awsome printer, buy it!!
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2006
|
|
tsumuji
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 14, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 14, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
A3 + paper,quiet, ease of use
|
|
Cons:
|
Short lifespan of color inks. All inks are not archival.
|
|
If you are interested in this don't buy it. Wait. The inks are not at all long lasting. It is way behind Epson in Archival inks. Canon has announced sometime ago a replacement. But it never arrives while Epson has had archival inks for some time. I cannot wait to get rid of this printer. I also find the settings work inconsistantly when I work from PS CS2.
Better to wait for the new models from Canon or get an Epson if you want your prints to last.
Also, just as a last note, the inks are rather expensive considering the poor quality.
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2006
|
|
sangredetigre
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 1, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Sharp, beautiful tonal range, good colour reproduction
|
|
|
May 2, 2006
|
|
ray_lam5
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 71
|
|
Review Date: Apr 23, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Pin point sharpness for text and cloured graphics, photographs and drawings
|
|
Cons:
|
Prob something i havent encountered?? Inkfade?
|
|
I bought this for my architectural portfolio when I was job hunting in February. I was about to get the epson 1800 because of its fadeless ink but luckily they were out of stock so i picked up one of these so called old printers! All my work printed out fabulously, text was razor sharp (even at 6pt) and my graphical work looked amazing especially in the acrylic sleeves of my portfolio. Also being a new father pictures of my little baby printed out wonderfully especially skin tone. I have purchased non canon inks and they seem to perform just as well )fingers crossed...
I intend to keep prints in portfolio sleeves so hope they last if not i will just run off another set in 5 years. I look after my work put them in dark dry cool storage protected so wont esxpect any problems here.
Would have liked to have waited for the new canon printers with lifetime inks but no regrets...
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2006
|
|
Michael-M
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Apr 21, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 2698
|
|
Review Date: Nov 26, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
fantastic piece of equipment. really fast, great colors and super quiet. very easy to setup and use.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
have been loving digital photography since giving up film a few years ago now, but have always been somewhat frustrated with the small printers that could print no larger than 8.5x11 and were a bit slow to say the least.
with the i9900, i have become totally obsessed lately and have even bought more new equipment in the 3 months of owning the 9900 than i have in the whole last 3+ years.
first 13x19 print of the wife with Zoey (our Chihuahua) just blew us both away and that it did this in less than 3 minutes was mind blowing.
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2005
|
|
mbailey
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 12, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 351
|
|
Review Date: Nov 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $399.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Beautiful output. Fairly fast. Easy interface. Reliable. Can handle volume.
|
|
Cons:
|
Uses moderate amts of ink but you can replace only the tanks that are empty. Likes Canon papers.
|
|
Overall an excellent value. The output is quality is awesome. I have used for six months with no problems. I printed a decent sized job (140 4x6s) with no issues. The printer is quiet. It uses a fair amount of inks esp photo cyan and photo magenta but you can replace these individually for about $10 each so operating expense is reasonable imo. For this price point I think this is a very good machine.
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2005
|
|
Leehman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 552
|
|
Review Date: Oct 14, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
value, value, value
|
|
Cons:
|
gobbles ink.
|
|
a great printer for the money. fairly quiet,
a good home printer for sticking the prints on the walls
Leehman
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2005
|
|
croasdail
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 26, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 803
|
|
Review Date: Sep 17, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $387.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely fast, quit, and hassle free.
|
|
Cons:
|
No major issues so far, a couple of borderless prints smudged on the bottom right corner as the paper dragged on the way out.
|
|
Using Kodak Satin paper, sports prints look wonderfull. I have done about 70 B & Ws also and so far no complaints there either. So far I am happy...
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2005
|
|
ottico
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 28
|
|
Review Date: Sep 11, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $420.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Great looking prints
|
|
Cons:
|
The ink!!! Poor b&w performance. Lack of paper from Canon and profiles.
|
|
While I agree that the results from this printer are pretty impressive, I sold mine because I want prints that are going to last longer than a few years. After doing considerable research, I have came to realize that Canon was full of &$#@ with their estimates of print longevity. What are they thinking to use dye ink in a semi-professional photo printer. Unlike pigament or combination (Epson Ultrachrome) ink which can be considered archival, dye's smaller molecules break down quickly and therefor prints do not last. I have been using Ilford Classic Pearl paper, which was made for this type of printer, but my prints are not going to last anywhere near what I'd want if I am to sell a print. The printer is great for proofs, but at around $400, can one justify this? Not to mention that Canon's paper selection is far from adequate. At least Ilford will provide a profile for their paper on this printer.
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2005
|
|
felixlo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 2, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
I've bought this printer for about half a year and found it very impressive. I don't agree with that there's no support for borderless 5x7 print. I've printed 5x7 borderless a lot time and had no problem at all. Overall, it's an outstanding photo printer!
|
|
|
Sep 2, 2005
|
|
eadesigns
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 8, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 531
|
|
Review Date: Jul 4, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Reasonable price. 13x19 prints, excellent speed, outstanding quality, reasonable ink usage (with the exception of PM & PC).
|
|
Cons:
|
No support for borderless 5x7, 8x10, and 11x14s. Rapid depletion of the Photo Magenta & Photo Cyan compared to other colors. Have an extra set of PM & PC handy at all times.
|
|
I purchased this as my first true 'photo' printer for event usage. It's worked well in all situation turning out great prints on either Canon Pro or ProMaster papers. Ink usage is very reasonable with the exception of the photo magenta and photo cyan. They seem to be used up at least twice as fast as any other color. I'd like to see some support for common borderless sizes such as 5x7, 8x10, and 11x14. The included Canon software works well and I'm pleased with the results.
|
|
|
Jul 4, 2005
|
|
sfriedberg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 21, 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 35
|
|
Review Date: Jun 27, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $324.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very fast, guiet, high quality prints
|
|
Cons:
|
Red and green inks go unused, print length limited to 23 inches.
|
|
This is a very nice 13x19 (Super-A3/Super-B) printer. In full photo glory it is nearly as fast as an HP 960 business inkjet doing text. It is quiet, even without "quiet mode" engaged. The borderless printing feature works well. And it produces very nice prints on good paper.
I usually print on matte rather than glossy stock. Epson Matte Heavyweight has been a long-standing choice, and I've recently gone to Red River Premium Matte. Both papers work very nicely in this printer. Blacks are dense. K blacks are very consistent with CMY blacks.
There is no point to using this printer unless you are on top of your color management. And there is no point to using any particular paper for this printer unless you can acquire (or produce) a good color profile for the specific combination of paper and printer. Running my usual paper options and "Shirley" images without correction, there are some really LARGE print differences, especially in the blue-green range.
I am talking about "that's a completely different color", not
barely perceptible differences. You will not get good, repeatable results unless you use color management.
Canon supplies 5 color profiles. One is for generic BubbleJet, the other four are for Canon paper, presumably tuned for this printer's ink set and FW. The generic is very different from the Canon paper profiles, all of which seem very similar to one another. I am not interested in buying Canon's overpriced paper, so haven't pursued them further, nor rated the paper.
I have this printer on a Linux print server's "raw" queue, using print drivers on my Windows workstations. This configuration is not supported by Canon, but works well except for maintenance functions and the status monitor, most of which seem to require bidirectional direct access to the printer.
The ink set for this printer is "doubly extended" CMYK. Lower-density "photo cyan" and "photo magenta" are a common extension to form a 6 color set. This printer adds red and green to form an 8 color set. Only one black. Standard Canon BCI-6 13ml dye-based ink cartridges throughout. I've only used one set of inks for this printer, so I can't validate cost/page yet. Genuine Canon cartridges are available in the $9-12 range, which seems reasonable for inkjet ink, but hardly a bargain. There are many 3rd party inks at lower prices. I will be trying WeInk's formula at some point.
Not unusually, photo cyan and photo magenta seem to be the most heavily used inks, with yellow and black in second place. Somewhat surprisingly, I seem to have negligible use of the red and green inks. I was sufficiently surprised to call Canon tech support about this. The support rep told me that none of the following affect the use of red and green: paper type choice in driver, use or non-use of ICM in printer driver, use of raw or EMT print queue (with the understanding that I'm not using a supported configuration). I was told (by a man with a lot of uncertainty wavering in his voice) that the printer driver always sends the same 4-color information [funny, I thought inkjets used RGB color data even though they have a CMYK ink set] to the printer, and it's entirely up to the printer firmware to decide how much photo-cyan and -magenta and red and green to use.
The bottom line is the highly touted red and green "enhancement" inks are contributing nothing to my final prints. Other configurations might differ, but only if Canon tech support didn't know what it was talking about. (That would be both beneficial and unsurprising.) I have seen many superficial magazine reviews for this printer talking up how much of a different the red & green inks make. If they aren't being used, they can't be making a difference. I will eventually have to replace even the R & G cartridges, though: cleaning cycles use ink from all 8 tanks.
While there may be some color shift over a few hours of full drying, properly set up prints are dry to the touch as they come out of the printer. A 32lb matte paper (compare to 50 or 65lb "photo weight" paper) fully loaded with ink does feel limp, but there is no danger of smearing. On the hand, if you put plain paper in the feeder, and tell the printer driver you've got a high resolution photo paper, you're going to have a mess.
No Super-B-sized printer will be small. The Canon i9900 doesn't seem to be larger than necessary. If anything, the feeder paper rest (which unfolds, unfolds again, then extends) should be larger to give better support to 19" long sheets. The outfeed paper rest (which unfolds, then extends three times) is OK for size. At first I though it might not be wide enough to properly support a lightweight (32lb or under), fully wet Super-B sheet, but it seems OK.
100 sheets of letter-sized 24lb paper (5 mil? 5.5mil?) will sit in the feeder just fine. I did a double-sized job of 55 sheets (110 sides) of 24lb plain paper and had no feeding issues on first or second pass. Limp, curled or very light-weight paper may pick up some stray ink on the leading edge or on the sides near the leading edge.
Canon is rather conservative about paper weights. "Don't use anything over 28lb - unless it's Canon brand". That's nonsense. 65lb paper (10mil) runs through the i9900 without any trouble. I suspect you can do 75lb super-heavy, too. I have not tried feeding a stack of more than 3 sheets of 65lb paper, so can't comment on feeder reliability with photo-weight sheets.
I am a bit put out by Canon's entirely artificial restriction on paper length. Print length is limited to 23.39" (595mm), which
obviously puts a crimp in banner or large panorama printing. Canon's rationale, so far as anyone can get a straight answer from them, is: they don't currently offer a panorama photo paper, they don't want people to buy non-Canon papers, so they aren't going to allow people to use a feature unsupported by Canon papers. Canon, get a clue!
Hookup and installation is a cinch. The i9900 does have a completely mysterious feature. It has both a USB 2.0 and a USB 1.1 socket, only one of which can be used at a time. But USB 2.0 is backward compatible with USB 1.1, begging the question of what the USB 1.1 socket is really for. My advice: use the USB 2.0 socket and ignore the USB 1.1 socket.
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2005
|
|
|
