Canon IP3000, 4000, 5000, 6000

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I am considering Canon printers this time around for the following
reasons:

I want the option of changing cartridges myself and being able to
visually see the levels and individual color cartridges seem a positive
change from my Epson 740.

I hear the Canon Printers are fast and I want fast.

I want reliability.

I want good photo results. I am not a professional photographer and
printing photos is mostly of interest for photos that would be hard to
get from the local suppliers of 4 X 6 & 8 X 10 prints who don't do
custom.

Now. Which Canon to get? Cost (as long as it is around $200 to $250
max) is not the strongest concern. What are are my reasons for
choosing between the iP 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000?

I like my Epson 740 for its speed, photo color quality, paper handling
and mechanical reliability. I hate my Epson 740 for its clogging
cartridges, extremely costly cartridge use/cost, inability to see the
ACTUAL ink level and the drying out of the sponge which makes refilling
less inviting.

Which Canon?
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

<eganders@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121167104.458861.16810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I am considering Canon printers this time around for the following
> reasons:
>
> I want the option of changing cartridges myself and being able to
> visually see the levels and individual color cartridges seem a positive
> change from my Epson 740.
>
> I hear the Canon Printers are fast and I want fast.
>
> I want reliability.
>
> I want good photo results. I am not a professional photographer and
> printing photos is mostly of interest for photos that would be hard to
> get from the local suppliers of 4 X 6 & 8 X 10 prints who don't do
> custom.
>
> Now. Which Canon to get? Cost (as long as it is around $200 to $250
> max) is not the strongest concern. What are are my reasons for
> choosing between the iP 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000?
>
> I like my Epson 740 for its speed, photo color quality, paper handling
> and mechanical reliability. I hate my Epson 740 for its clogging
> cartridges, extremely costly cartridge use/cost, inability to see the
> ACTUAL ink level and the drying out of the sponge which makes refilling
> less inviting.
>
> Which Canon?
>

The 4000 is the best choice for you. This is also the most popular in the
range.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

<eganders@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121167104.458861.16810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I am considering Canon printers this time around for the following
> reasons:
>
> I want the option of changing cartridges myself and being able to
> visually see the levels and individual color cartridges seem a positive
> change from my Epson 740.
>
> I hear the Canon Printers are fast and I want fast.
>
> I want reliability.
>
> I want good photo results. I am not a professional photographer and
> printing photos is mostly of interest for photos that would be hard to
> get from the local suppliers of 4 X 6 & 8 X 10 prints who don't do
> custom.
>
> Now. Which Canon to get? Cost (as long as it is around $200 to $250
> max) is not the strongest concern. What are are my reasons for
> choosing between the iP 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000?
>
> I like my Epson 740 for its speed, photo color quality, paper handling
> and mechanical reliability. I hate my Epson 740 for its clogging
> cartridges, extremely costly cartridge use/cost, inability to see the
> ACTUAL ink level and the drying out of the sponge which makes refilling
> less inviting.
>
> Which Canon?

You can go onto the Canon website and do a comparison of three printers.
Of the ones you in which you are interested, the 4000, 5000, and 6000 are
the ones to check out in my estimation. The 4000 and 5000 have CMYK
dye-based inks plus a black pigment-based ink for text printing. The 5000
has a 1 picoliter printhead as opposed to 2 picoliter heads in the other
two. The 6000 uses CMYK plus photo cyan and photo magenta which are low
dye-load inks designed to produce more subtle color blends the the cyan and
magenta range. I use the i960, a six color ink printer in the I series that
came before the Pixma line and is similar in color printing to the ip6000.
Since I use this printer only for photo and color graphics I prefer the six
color ink output and have no need for the pigment-based black for text
printing.

The ip6000 is available at Amazon today for $112 after a rebate. That is
what I would buy.
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Mike wrote:

><eganders@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1121167104.458861.16810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>I am considering Canon printers this time around for the following
>>reasons:
>>
>>I want the option of changing cartridges myself and being able to
>>visually see the levels and individual color cartridges seem a positive
>>change from my Epson 740.
>>
>>I hear the Canon Printers are fast and I want fast.
>>
>>I want reliability.
>>
>>I want good photo results. I am not a professional photographer and
>>printing photos is mostly of interest for photos that would be hard to
>>get from the local suppliers of 4 X 6 & 8 X 10 prints who don't do
>>custom.
>>
>>Now. Which Canon to get? Cost (as long as it is around $200 to $250
>>max) is not the strongest concern. What are are my reasons for
>>choosing between the iP 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000?
>>
>>I like my Epson 740 for its speed, photo color quality, paper handling
>>and mechanical reliability. I hate my Epson 740 for its clogging
>>cartridges, extremely costly cartridge use/cost, inability to see the
>>ACTUAL ink level and the drying out of the sponge which makes refilling
>>less inviting.
>>
>>Which Canon?
>>
>>
>>
>
>The 4000 is the best choice for you. This is also the most popular in the
>range.
>
>

I agree. The only exception is if your print load will be higher for
text and graphics. Then I would also look at the IP5000. To get the
best results and reduce the chance of printhead clogs use Canon OEM ink.

>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt wrote:

><eganders@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1121167104.458861.16810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>I am considering Canon printers this time around for the following
>>reasons:
>>
>>I want the option of changing cartridges myself and being able to
>>visually see the levels and individual color cartridges seem a positive
>>change from my Epson 740.
>>
>>I hear the Canon Printers are fast and I want fast.
>>
>>I want reliability.
>>
>>I want good photo results. I am not a professional photographer and
>>printing photos is mostly of interest for photos that would be hard to
>>get from the local suppliers of 4 X 6 & 8 X 10 prints who don't do
>>custom.
>>
>>Now. Which Canon to get? Cost (as long as it is around $200 to $250
>>max) is not the strongest concern. What are are my reasons for
>>choosing between the iP 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000?
>>
>>I like my Epson 740 for its speed, photo color quality, paper handling
>>and mechanical reliability. I hate my Epson 740 for its clogging
>>cartridges, extremely costly cartridge use/cost, inability to see the
>>ACTUAL ink level and the drying out of the sponge which makes refilling
>>less inviting.
>>
>>Which Canon?
>>
>>
>
>You can go onto the Canon website and do a comparison of three printers.
>Of the ones you in which you are interested, the 4000, 5000, and 6000 are
>the ones to check out in my estimation. The 4000 and 5000 have CMYK
>dye-based inks plus a black pigment-based ink for text printing. The 5000
>has a 1 picoliter printhead as opposed to 2 picoliter heads in the other
>two. The 6000 uses CMYK plus photo cyan and photo magenta which are low
>dye-load inks designed to produce more subtle color blends the the cyan and
>magenta range. I use the i960, a six color ink printer in the I series that
>came before the Pixma line and is similar in color printing to the ip6000.
>Since I use this printer only for photo and color graphics I prefer the six
>color ink output and have no need for the pigment-based black for text
>printing.
>
>The ip6000 is available at Amazon today for $112 after a rebate. That is
>what I would buy.
>
>
>
>
>

The IP6000 is not a good choice. According to PC Mag tests it is
slower, marginally worse when printing photos, substantially worse when
printing text and graphics and more expensive. The only people that
should consider this printer are those few who want to print photos
without using a computer.

If you want better results than an IP4000 for photos you should then
look at the IP8500, the PIXMA 8 color sibling to the award winning
i9900. And be sure to use OEM ink.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Measekite always stresses using OEM inks although he has never used non-OEM
inks. Without personal experience, that is his point of view. MIS and
Formulabs bulk inks for refilling give comparable results, are one tenth the
price, and have proven reliable without harm to the printer with several of
the people who post on this NG. I use MIS inks in my i960, the printer I
would recommend if it were still available. I have not personally used the
IP6000 so I can not comment on the issues raised in the magazine reviews.
If Measekite has actually used it himself you should value his suggestion.
It is my understanding that his experience is with his own IP4000 with OEM
ink only, and not an IP6000.

<eganders@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121167104.458861.16810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I am considering Canon printers this time around for the following
> reasons:
>
> I want the option of changing cartridges myself and being able to
> visually see the levels and individual color cartridges seem a positive
> change from my Epson 740.
>
> I hear the Canon Printers are fast and I want fast.
>
> I want reliability.
>
> I want good photo results. I am not a professional photographer and
> printing photos is mostly of interest for photos that would be hard to
> get from the local suppliers of 4 X 6 & 8 X 10 prints who don't do
> custom.
>
> Now. Which Canon to get? Cost (as long as it is around $200 to $250
> max) is not the strongest concern. What are are my reasons for
> choosing between the iP 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000?
>
> I like my Epson 740 for its speed, photo color quality, paper handling
> and mechanical reliability. I hate my Epson 740 for its clogging
> cartridges, extremely costly cartridge use/cost, inability to see the
> ACTUAL ink level and the drying out of the sponge which makes refilling
> less inviting.
>
> Which Canon?
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
wrotenews:WxUAe.1692$mN1.222@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>><eganders@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1121167104.458861.16810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>I am considering Canon printers this time around for the following
>>>reasons:
>>>
>>>I want the option of changing cartridges myself and being able to
>>>visually see the levels and individual color cartridges seem a positive
>>>change from my Epson 740.
>>>
>>>I hear the Canon Printers are fast and I want fast.
>>>
>>>I want reliability.
>>>
>>>I want good photo results. I am not a professional photographer and
>>>printing photos is mostly of interest for photos that would be hard to
>>>get from the local suppliers of 4 X 6 & 8 X 10 prints who don't do
>>>custom.
>>>
>>>Now. Which Canon to get? Cost (as long as it is around $200 to $250
>>>max) is not the strongest concern. What are are my reasons for
>>>choosing between the iP 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000?
>>>
>>>I like my Epson 740 for its speed, photo color quality, paper handling
>>>and mechanical reliability. I hate my Epson 740 for its clogging
>>>cartridges, extremely costly cartridge use/cost, inability to see the
>>>ACTUAL ink level and the drying out of the sponge which makes refilling
>>>less inviting.
>>>
>>>Which Canon?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You can go onto the Canon website and do a comparison of three printers.
>>Of the ones you in which you are interested, the 4000, 5000, and 6000
>>are the ones to check out in my estimation. The 4000 and 5000 have CMYK
>>dye-based inks plus a black pigment-based ink for text printing. The
>>5000 has a 1 picoliter printhead as opposed to 2 picoliter heads in the
>>other two. The 6000 uses CMYK plus photo cyan and photo magenta which
>>are low dye-load inks designed to produce more subtle color blends the
>>the cyan and magenta range. I use the i960, a six color ink printer in
>>the I series that came before the Pixma line and is similar in color
>>printing to the ip6000. Since I use this printer only for photo and
>>color graphics I prefer the six color ink output and have no need for
>>the pigment-based black for text printing.
>>
>>The ip6000 is available at Amazon today for $112 after a rebate. That
>>is what I would buy.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> The IP6000 is not a good choice. According to PC Mag tests it is
> slower, marginally worse when printing photos, substantially worse when
> printing text and graphics and more expensive. The only people that
> should consider this printer are those few who want to print photos
> without using a computer.
>
> If you want better results than an IP4000 for photos you should then
> look at the IP8500, the PIXMA 8 color sibling to the award winning
> i9900. And be sure to use OEM ink.
>

The 3000/4000 are the top rated printers in Consumer Reports and the 6000
is way down about halfway on the list.


--
---Mapanari---
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Burt" <sfbjgNOSPAM@pacbell.net>
wrotenews:BJUAe.1487$_%4.110@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

> Measekite always stresses using OEM inks although he has never used
> non-OEM inks. Without personal experience, that is his point of view.
> MIS and Formulabs bulk inks for refilling give comparable results, are
> one tenth the price, and have proven reliable without harm to the
> printer with several of the people who post on this NG. I use MIS inks
> in my i960, the printer I would recommend if it were still available. I
> have not personally used the IP6000 so I can not comment on the issues
> raised in the magazine reviews. If Measekite has actually used it
> himself you should value his suggestion. It is my understanding that his
> experience is with his own IP4000 with OEM ink only, and not an IP6000.

He works for canon obviously.

All the printer companies make all the money on cartridges, not the
printers.

In fact, the only reason why Hewlett Packard Computers are even still in
business, the whole company, is becuase of their absurd pricing for ink
cartridges. The whole company, all the millions of dollars that Carly
stole from the shareholders, all that comes from ink carts.



--
---Mapanari---
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Looks like the iP4000 to me!!!
Thanks for all your information. It has been very interesting to read
and I appreciate your feedback. THANKS!!!

eganders
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> Looks like the iP4000 to me!!!
> Thanks for all your information. It has been very interesting to read
> and I appreciate your feedback. THANKS!!

Do checkout the deal outpost.com has on the mp750. It's basicly an
all-in-one unit based on the ip4000.

http://shop2.outpost.com/product/4311355?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

The price is about the same as the ip4000 give or take a few bucks.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Mapanari wrote:

>measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
>wrotenews:WxUAe.1692$mN1.222@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
>
>>Burt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>><eganders@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1121167104.458861.16810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am considering Canon printers this time around for the following
>>>>reasons:
>>>>
>>>>I want the option of changing cartridges myself and being able to
>>>>visually see the levels and individual color cartridges seem a positive
>>>>change from my Epson 740.
>>>>
>>>>I hear the Canon Printers are fast and I want fast.
>>>>
>>>>I want reliability.
>>>>
>>>>I want good photo results. I am not a professional photographer and
>>>>printing photos is mostly of interest for photos that would be hard to
>>>>get from the local suppliers of 4 X 6 & 8 X 10 prints who don't do
>>>>custom.
>>>>
>>>>Now. Which Canon to get? Cost (as long as it is around $200 to $250
>>>>max) is not the strongest concern. What are are my reasons for
>>>>choosing between the iP 3000, 4000, 5000 and 6000?
>>>>
>>>>I like my Epson 740 for its speed, photo color quality, paper handling
>>>>and mechanical reliability. I hate my Epson 740 for its clogging
>>>>cartridges, extremely costly cartridge use/cost, inability to see the
>>>>ACTUAL ink level and the drying out of the sponge which makes refilling
>>>>less inviting.
>>>>
>>>>Which Canon?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You can go onto the Canon website and do a comparison of three printers.
>>>Of the ones you in which you are interested, the 4000, 5000, and 6000
>>>are the ones to check out in my estimation. The 4000 and 5000 have CMYK
>>>dye-based inks plus a black pigment-based ink for text printing. The
>>>5000 has a 1 picoliter printhead as opposed to 2 picoliter heads in the
>>>other two. The 6000 uses CMYK plus photo cyan and photo magenta which
>>>are low dye-load inks designed to produce more subtle color blends the
>>>the cyan and magenta range. I use the i960, a six color ink printer in
>>>the I series that came before the Pixma line and is similar in color
>>>printing to the ip6000. Since I use this printer only for photo and
>>>color graphics I prefer the six color ink output and have no need for
>>>the pigment-based black for text printing.
>>>
>>>The ip6000 is available at Amazon today for $112 after a rebate. That
>>>is what I would buy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The IP6000 is not a good choice. According to PC Mag tests it is
>>slower, marginally worse when printing photos, substantially worse when
>>printing text and graphics and more expensive. The only people that
>>should consider this printer are those few who want to print photos
>>without using a computer.
>>
>>If you want better results than an IP4000 for photos you should then
>>look at the IP8500, the PIXMA 8 color sibling to the award winning
>>i9900. And be sure to use OEM ink.
>>
>>
>>
>
>The 3000/4000 are the top rated printers in Consumer Reports and the 6000
>is way down about halfway on the list.
>
>
>

Burtie Furtie thinks he is a know it all. I think he act like a jerk.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> Bought an iP4000 last week at Staples. List price was $149 minus a $30
> instore rebate minus a $20 Canon rebate. Total = $99

It's why I made sure to say give or take a few bucks. When you take
the rebates into account... the ip4000 is often cheaper than the mp750
from outpost which is $100 + $35ish shipping.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Measekite - the following is a portion of the Terms of Service of your ISP.

9. MEMBER CONDUCT
You agree that you will NOT use the Service to:
(a) upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content
(as defined below) that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive,
harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of
another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise
objectionable...

As a customer of SBC you have agreed to their Terms of Service. Your
continual changes of my postings and your admission in a previous post that
your intention is to annoy me is harrassing and abusive behavior. I am
advising you that I will contact Prodigy, SBC, and Yahoo, if you continue
this harrassing behavior. If you wish to post responses you have a right to
state your opinion on this open forum, just as I have that right. You do
not, however, have the right to harrass me by changing my messages as this
denies me my right to have my opinion publically stated under my signature.
Your name calling is also harrassing and defamatory.

I welcome the open dialogue and responses from all participants, whether
they agree with me or not. That includes you, Measekite. As you object
strenuously to people you regard as spammers, I feel the same way about you
when you change my posts and call me and others names. It is a violation of
your agreement with SBC and an affront to all who use this forum.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> It really makes no sense for ip6000 to be a poor printer.

You'll have to check with someone wiser than my self. I've heard from
many they prefer the output from the i960 than the ip6000. According
to canon the i960 has 3,072 nozzles [4800 x 1200] where the ip6000
[4800 x 1200 dpi] has 1536. While the dpi is constent yet the nozzle
count is higher, I can only assume if these numbers are correct not
only does the i960 have a different head than the ip6000, but prints a
wider area at a given time.

http://steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/canon_i960_pg2.html
http://steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_ip6000d_pg2.html

Discuss amongt your selves.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt wrote:

> The ip6000 is available at Amazon today for $112 after a rebate. That is
> what I would buy.

I'll second that opinion. If you are willing to spend some more ip8500 is
even better. My experience with ip8500 is just great. Extremely reliable.
It always works as expected. I believe ip6000 is just as good except it has
only 6 ink cartridges while ip8500 uses 8.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

>
> If you want better results than an IP4000 for photos you should then
> look at the IP8500, the PIXMA 8 color sibling to the award winning
> i9900. And be sure to use OEM ink.

I use 3rd party ink and refill from day one when I bought my ip8500. Never
had any problem what so ever. Believe me I am talking about a stack of paper
and photo (8x11) about one foot thick printed so far. My photos are just as
good as those printed with my first set of OEM cartridges.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Mapanari wrote:

>
> The 3000/4000 are the top rated printers in Consumer Reports and the 6000
> is way down about halfway on the list.

Not I don't believe you but it doesn't make sense. Ip6000 use CMYKPcPM inks
to print all the colors contained in the image to be printed. Ip3000/4000 use
only CMYK inks. Some colors will be missing because they are missing the PC
and PM inks. all these printers use same CMYK inks. It doesn't make sense for
Canon to produce the highly regarded i960 but screws up on ip6000. I960 uses
same CMYKPcPm inks as the ip6000 does. Ip6000 is a newer printer than i960.
It really makes no sense for ip6000 to be a poor printer.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> Just looked at specifications and realized that fact about nozzle counts.
> ip6000D looks indeed inferior than i960. ip6000 is no longer on Canon's
> web site. I am shocked at the fact that Canon replaced an excellent i960
> with an inferior ip6000. Thanks for the heads up. It's good to be corrected.

The i960 was a $400 printer in 2003. The ip6000 I believe was released
late 2004 for less money. For all intents and purposes... I think of
the ip8500 a $400ish (ok $350) as a good replacement for the i960 in
the fact that there is an improvement and the price mark is about the
same.

But I understand where you are comming from, I was shocked as well but
it makes a fair amount of sense. How could they offer a printer with
an LCD screen without cutting back somewhere.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Just looked at specifications and realized that fact about nozzle counts.
ip6000D looks indeed inferior than i960. ip6000 is no longer on Canon's
web site. I am shocked at the fact that Canon replaced an excellent i960
with an inferior ip6000. Thanks for the heads up. It's good to be corrected.

zakezuke wrote:
>> It really makes no sense for ip6000 to be a poor printer.
>
>
> You'll have to check with someone wiser than my self. I've heard from
> many they prefer the output from the i960 than the ip6000. According
> to canon the i960 has 3,072 nozzles [4800 x 1200] where the ip6000
> [4800 x 1200 dpi] has 1536. While the dpi is constent yet the nozzle
> count is higher, I can only assume if these numbers are correct not
> only does the i960 have a different head than the ip6000, but prints a
> wider area at a given time.
>
> http://steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/canon_i960_pg2.html
> http://steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/canon_ip6000d_pg2.html
>
> Discuss amongt your selves.
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> Although the ip8500 is
> rated very highly as a photo printer, the i960 is no slouch. This makes
> sense if you don't need the lcd screen, two paper feeds, and duplexing,
>" improvements" that I don't personally need.

The CD printing I'd find a very useful feature, that and the fact that
my latté won't fit ontop of the i960 without spilling are the only
reasons I didn't go with it.

LCD screen I don't need, but I respect the fact that others would find
it useful, not that they are trully needed as pictbridge does a fab job
of allowing cameras to print, but I an still see it useful for basic
cropping without a pc.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> IT IS ONLY GOOD FOR THE COMPUTER ILLITERATE PERSON
> WHO WANTS TO PRINT THEIR WAD WITHOUT A COMPUTER.

Which is the largest demographic on planet earth. Otherwise why is
pictbridge so popular?

Seriously... You know what people do when you tell them that they don't
need to hookup the printer to the computer? This could include all
those nice AIOs that are on the market. You know what they do, they
buy them. Who wants to learn tedius software when you can just pop in
your memory, press a few buttons, and get prints. You, I, and just
about anyone else who's computer literate would prefer going into
photoshop, but we are in the minority. Even among people who own card
readers, most don't know how to navigate folders down to where the
images are. I'm not being insulting, this is a fact. And because
canon's target market is the consumer crowd most of who are hardly
computer literate (no offence), they are more than willing to sacrafice
raw print speed in order to just jack in their memory and print bloody
pictures, and thank the heavens above they don't have to fuss with
wires or their pc.

But if you honestly feel the output of the i6000 is inferior, why not
reccomend the mp750/760/780 to those who actually want the LCD screen
and ease of use. You points are valid enough that such a
reccomendation is justified.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121639202.205001.208010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Just looked at specifications and realized that fact about nozzle counts.
>> ip6000D looks indeed inferior than i960. ip6000 is no longer on Canon's
>> web site. I am shocked at the fact that Canon replaced an excellent i960
>> with an inferior ip6000. Thanks for the heads up. It's good to be
>> corrected.
>
> The i960 was a $400 printer in 2003. The ip6000 I believe was released
> late 2004 for less money. For all intents and purposes... I think of
> the ip8500 a $400ish (ok $350) as a good replacement for the i960 in
> the fact that there is an improvement and the price mark is about the
> same.
>
> But I understand where you are comming from, I was shocked as well but
> it makes a fair amount of sense. How could they offer a printer with
> an LCD screen without cutting back somewhere.

Still time to buy a new i960 while there are a few in the pipeline (Amazon -
about $150). I should have bought one when tigerdirect had them new for
about $80 plus shipping. Just a few weeks ago. Could have just put it ont
the shelf and saved it til my current i960 dies. Although the ip8500 is
rated very highly as a photo printer, the i960 is no slouch. This makes
sense if you don't need the lcd screen, two paper feeds, and duplexing,
"improvements" that I don't personally need.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

THE IP8500 GETS GOOD REVIEWS. THE IP6000 DOES NOT. IT IS SLOWER THAN
THE IP4000, MARGINALLY INFERIOR ON PHOTOS AND SUBSTANTIALLY INFERIOR ON
BUSINESS DOCUMENTS. IT IS ONLY GOOD FOR THE COMPUTER ILLITERATE PERSON
WHO WANTS TO PRINT THEIR WAD WITHOUT A COMPUTER.

Stevelee wrote:

>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>> The ip6000 is available at Amazon today for $112 after a rebate.
>> That is what I would buy.
>
>
> I'll second that opinion. If you are willing to spend some more ip8500 is
> even better. My experience with ip8500 is just great. Extremely reliable.
> It always works as expected. I believe ip6000 is just as good except
> it has
> only 6 ink cartridges while ip8500 uses 8.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Stevelee wrote:

>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>> If you want better results than an IP4000 for photos you should then
>> look at the IP8500, the PIXMA 8 color sibling to the award winning
>> i9900. And be sure to use OEM ink.
>
>
> I use 3rd party ink and refill from day one when I bought my ip8500.
> Never
> had any problem what so ever. Believe me I am talking about a stack of
> paper
> and photo (8x11) about one foot thick printed so far. My photos are
> just as
> good as those printed with my first set of OEM cartridges.


ITS LIKE DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT HAD AN
ACCIDENT YET THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD DROP YOUR INSURANCE.
 
Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
>
>
> Stevelee wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If you want better results than an IP4000 for photos you should then
>>> look at the IP8500, the PIXMA 8 color sibling to the award winning
>>> i9900. And be sure to use OEM ink.
>>
>>
>>
>> I use 3rd party ink and refill from day one when I bought my ip8500.
>> Never
>> had any problem what so ever. Believe me I am talking about a stack of
>> paper
>> and photo (8x11) about one foot thick printed so far. My photos are
>> just as
>> good as those printed with my first set of OEM cartridges.
>
>
>
> ITS LIKE DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT HAD AN
> ACCIDENT YET THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD DROP YOUR INSURANCE.

OEM ink use is not insurance. Registering the printer itself is
insurance; and it's equally valid for both users or OEM and non OEM.

And for what it's worth, I use bulk and compatibles in my iP5000 and
haven't even bothered with registration. Does it look like I'm deeply
worried. And I don't anticipate the Canon ink "keystone kops" pulling me
over anytime soon for ink evasion. They're so inept the last time I
talked to them they asked me to identify (name) the first cartridge in
my printer beginning from the left. Duhhhhhhh. . . .

-Taliesyn