Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)
zakezuke wrote:
>>I believe that they did not rank the IP6000 very highly not because it
>>is a bad printer but Canon has others in the line that they (and I
>>agree) are much better. An example would be the IP4000 and the IP5000.
>>
>>
>
>I think if you actualy read the articile they say "The iP6000D's
>performance and quality for business applications make it a poor choice
>as an all-around printer.
>
They do say that.
>But its photo performance, quality, and
>photo-printing features make it a reasonable choice if you want a
>second printer specifically for photos."
>
Yes but they and also some other article I read (maybe pcworld) say that
the IP4000/5000 is a step ahead.
>In fact if you look at their
>review on the ip8500 they basicly say the same thing "Text/graphics
>quality and speed are good but not in the same league as photo quality
>and speed.".
>
>
The IP8500 is sort of a different animal. Basically they took the
marvelous printer engine from the i9900 and put it in a standard format
printer and then added duplexing and twin paper feeds. It does not have
the pigmented black that is used in text. It is also not quite as fast
as the i9900.
>This is why I don't read PC mag but rather made my own judgement.
>
You have to know how to read PCMag. You do not look at every word but
evaluate the comparisons. They also point out many things that act as
alerts for one to investigate.
> To
>me the ip6000 seems just dandy for a dedicated photo printer esp among
>those who don't want to be limited to PC printing.
>
>
While it is good for that doing that kind of thing is not a smart way to
go about photography. It is really too expensive. IT is like bringing
a roll of film to the photo lab and getting 36 photos back of which you
can throw 35 in the trash. If one is going to do that (print almost
every photo) a 1 hour photo may be a better choice. albiet no as convenient.
>As a pure photo printer, the ip6000 is just fine... if a tad slower
>than the older model i960, but keep in mind the ip6000 is cheaper than
>the ip5000. But I do agree with you the fact that text printing is my
>primary application and while I have older lasers they have reached the
>point that I don't want to muck with them any more, and the ip3000 and
>mp760, while more costly per page for black, are a reasonable
>substute.. if not perfect. I would consider the ip6000 as a
>replacement to my epson r200 for CD printing, covers, and photos.
>
>
I think you can get better results with the IP4000. If one is heavier
on business document than photos I would maybe recommend the IP5000.
While somewhat leary about 1 pl droplet size and why Canon did not go
that way with all of the models, that sort of has been dispelled with
the release of the IP4200. I understand they continued with the 1pl
droplet size but much slower than the IP5000.
I am not real sure on where the IP5000 and IP4200 stand against each
other but I am sure they will be compared in some future review.
zakezuke wrote:
>>I believe that they did not rank the IP6000 very highly not because it
>>is a bad printer but Canon has others in the line that they (and I
>>agree) are much better. An example would be the IP4000 and the IP5000.
>>
>>
>
>I think if you actualy read the articile they say "The iP6000D's
>performance and quality for business applications make it a poor choice
>as an all-around printer.
>
They do say that.
>But its photo performance, quality, and
>photo-printing features make it a reasonable choice if you want a
>second printer specifically for photos."
>
Yes but they and also some other article I read (maybe pcworld) say that
the IP4000/5000 is a step ahead.
>In fact if you look at their
>review on the ip8500 they basicly say the same thing "Text/graphics
>quality and speed are good but not in the same league as photo quality
>and speed.".
>
>
The IP8500 is sort of a different animal. Basically they took the
marvelous printer engine from the i9900 and put it in a standard format
printer and then added duplexing and twin paper feeds. It does not have
the pigmented black that is used in text. It is also not quite as fast
as the i9900.
>This is why I don't read PC mag but rather made my own judgement.
>
You have to know how to read PCMag. You do not look at every word but
evaluate the comparisons. They also point out many things that act as
alerts for one to investigate.
> To
>me the ip6000 seems just dandy for a dedicated photo printer esp among
>those who don't want to be limited to PC printing.
>
>
While it is good for that doing that kind of thing is not a smart way to
go about photography. It is really too expensive. IT is like bringing
a roll of film to the photo lab and getting 36 photos back of which you
can throw 35 in the trash. If one is going to do that (print almost
every photo) a 1 hour photo may be a better choice. albiet no as convenient.
>As a pure photo printer, the ip6000 is just fine... if a tad slower
>than the older model i960, but keep in mind the ip6000 is cheaper than
>the ip5000. But I do agree with you the fact that text printing is my
>primary application and while I have older lasers they have reached the
>point that I don't want to muck with them any more, and the ip3000 and
>mp760, while more costly per page for black, are a reasonable
>substute.. if not perfect. I would consider the ip6000 as a
>replacement to my epson r200 for CD printing, covers, and photos.
>
>
I think you can get better results with the IP4000. If one is heavier
on business document than photos I would maybe recommend the IP5000.
While somewhat leary about 1 pl droplet size and why Canon did not go
that way with all of the models, that sort of has been dispelled with
the release of the IP4200. I understand they continued with the 1pl
droplet size but much slower than the IP5000.
I am not real sure on where the IP5000 and IP4200 stand against each
other but I am sure they will be compared in some future review.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram