Canon ix5000 or i9950

[richiehatch]

Hi

I have decided to get an A3 printer for printing high quality images from my 20D and other cameras. I have narrowed it down to the i9950 or ix5000. I am not that bothered by the speed of the printer, but i do want maximum print quality. I have used Epson printers for years but am sick of throwing out half full cartridges when the printer wont clean the heads properly. I know there is quite a price difference between the 2 but am prepared to pay it if the quality is much better on the i9950. I would love to know of anyones experience's of using either printer and if anyone has compared the 2 on print quality...?

Also if anybody wants to reccommend something else go right ahead...!

Thanks in advance

Richie

 

[Osage]

To richey,

Although I don't have an A3 printer, I think I can understand some of your concerns. I also comment that you may be coming to these boards somewhat ignorant of certain other concerns---But I want to stress I don't mean ignorant in any insulting way, just a lot of concerns you may be unaware of--so welcome to the boards--lots of great people here and its a great place to learn.-----but for now, ignoring any Epson specific concerns, you seem interested in a Canon A3 printer that will do a good job with photoprinting.--so side issue #1 strangely becomes what country you are in---because that can dictate what is available to you---but I am guessing not in the USA.---and I am guessing that cost is of some concern--but quality will somewhat trump cost.------so I will try to just cover basic concerns that occur to me on a superficial basis.

First, the ix5000 is a four color printer----having a chipped set of cartridges in a pigmented text black plus the dye based basic primary colors of cyan, magenta, and yellow. In photomode, black is created by mixing the three primary dye based colors mostly and the resulting black is not pleasing to many eyes--its just not a deep black------so many 5, 6, and 8 color Canon printers get around this by adding a dye based photoblack.----and the i9950 is a far more expensive photoprinter of that 8 color type. But you will notice that lack of a photoblack mostly when your printed photo's have a large areas of black---and not when your photo's have little of those areas---but one highly regarded poster on this forum--Neil Slade--seems to advocate having more than six colors is overkill.

Your Epson may have been a pigment based photoprinter---and in general a pigment based photoprint is more achival--but a dye based photoprint tends to have more dynamic colors.
I have heard rumors that Canon will soon introduce a 10 color pigmnent based printer soon, but I believe the 8 color i9950 is dye based and chipped.--but the Amazing brain adventure article by Neil Slade may be worth the read for more info on that.

To adddress the chipped Issue, I will just comment that one reason for the popularity of Canon printers for photoprinting is the affordability issue--the previous unchipped Models just made refilling or by very cheap third party prefilled cartridges not only very easy---but as I say made photoprinting very affordable. The chipped Canons can be refilled but its just
more of a problem-----but when you can reduce ink consumable costs dramtically---easily by a factor of 15x by refilling--you can start to understand why many here refill our own cartridges.

But if you want the one generation back non-chipped version of the i9950, I would be looking at the i9900---which quite a few on this forum have---might be harder to find---but you may find it a far better fit with your needs.

Just my take and general concerns for a start---others may have additional information or advice.

 

[websnail]

As an iX4000 owner I have to say that the print quality is pretty good but I am very ignorant of the prime photo and colour quality issues that most photo enthusiasts discuss at length..

What I can recommend though is that you take a long hard look at the cost issue of Canon chipped printers given that there are now various "problems" being reported regarding the refillability of the printers.. For all that I've read quite a bit about the longevity of Canon OEM vs' other bulk inks so it's a toss up...

Overall I'd take a trip to stevesforums (Steves' Digicam forum) as they are photo enthusiasts and may well be able to provide more technical info on A3 printers from a photographers point of view or at least add to the input you get from here.

 

[Grandad35]

Richie,

I believe that the i9900 is simply the US version of the i9950, and that both printers are of the same generation and are functionally identical.

The extra red and green inks extend the color gamut of the printer, and are probably only useful if you are really fussy about your colors. If you don't have a color managed workflow ("color aware" photo editing software (Photoshop), a calibrated monitor and custom ICC profiles for your ink/paper/printer combination), you will probably never see any difference from the 2 extra inks. The red and green ink usage is only 10-20% of the most heavily used colors, and most of that usage is probably during cleaning cycles.

As to the quality of the prints, they are as good as anything that I have seen. The sharpness of the prints is limited by the quality of the images that you send to the printer more than by the printer itself. Getting the sharpest images will require you to first sharpen them in software (since you have a 20D, I assume that you also have PS). I always print through Qimage because it has some great capabilities that allow it to automatically uprez everything to the printer's native 600x600 dpi resolution at print time, using routines that are better than bicubic.

These printers are nearing the end of their life cycle, and $100 rebates are now available (at least on the i9900). Its smaller brother, the i8500, has the same print head and ink set and is no longer generally available. The expectation is that the i9900 will be discontinued shortly, to be replaced by a new 10 (pigment) ink printer to compete with Epson.

You didn't say what the end use of your prints will be, your anticipated printing volume, or whether you will be buying OEM ink cartridges, 3rd party compatibles or refilling. If you are selling your prints, go with a pigment ink printer for the superior archival properties of the prints - dye based prints will become harder to sell as time passes. Both Canon and HP have announced pigment based (consumer) printers to address this market need, but since Canon's printers aren't available yet, there is obviously no published experience with clogging on these printers to compare them with Epson pigment printers. If you plan on using OEM ink cartridges, plan on the pigment carts costing even more than the present dye based carts.

If your prints are for personal use and don't need to be archival, the dye based inks seem to clog less than pigment based inks, and most people claim that dye based inks have a wider color gamut than pigment based inks. Depending on the ink and paper used, they can achieve archival ratings similar to conventional chemical based prints (which also use organic dyes to generate the various colors), but obviously not as good as prints made with pigment based inks.

If you will be printing more than just occasionally and you are concerned about the cost of the ink, you may be planning on buying 3rd party prefilled carts. It isn't clear that these carts will be available for the newer printers, since Canon has recently added a "chip" to their carts to prevent this by adding technical and legal (patent) barriers that must be solved. If you plan on refilling, the jury is still out on how easy it will be to refill Canon's chipped carts over the long term. Some are doing it successfully, but others are having problems getting around "the chip". There are numerous threads on this subject on this and other forums.

I have been using an i9900 for about 18 months, and refilling with bulk ink. I have just passed the 100 cart mark for the past 12 months, and have therefore saved about US$1000 on ink during that time. The rebates, the pending discontinuation of the last non-chip Canon and the uncertainty of the future of refilling the chipped carts caused me to recently purchase a new second i9900 to be held as a spare, if this tells you anything.

 

[richiehatch]

Thanks very much for the replies.... Exactly what i needed to know...! You guys really know your stuff when it comes to printers..!

A bit more information for you... I will generally use the printer for printing high quality images for photographic competitions. Longevity of the print for such events is not really a problem as images would only be hung for short periods. It would be used purely as a home printer with maybe at most 10 A3 prints per week. I have sold prints before but used a lab instead of printing at work on an Epson 1290. So volumes would be low but I am a stickler for high quality. I have seen prints from the i9900/i9950 (yes they are the same machine) and was very impressed both at the quality and speed. I am still not sure if the 9950 is worth the extra money over the ix5000/4000...? What do you guys think..? I can get the ix5000 for 350 or the 9950 for 569 which is stretching the budget a little bit. For the same price I could get an Epson r1800 but have read very mixed reports on them.

On the refiliing thing... i have absolutely no experience of it but would be interested providing it doesnt effect the quality of the final print... to date i have always used OEM cartridges.

Thanks again guys... you have been very helpful... I will wait a little while... maybe mid next week before purchasing so replies are appreciated... In the mean time have a look over at my online galleries at the type of photographic work I would most likey be printing (landscapes are my favourite)....!

http://www.pbase.com/richiehatch

Richie

 

[websnail]

I am still not sure if the 9950 is worth the extra money over the ix5000/4000...? What do you guys think..? I can get the ix5000 for 350 or the 9950 for 569 which is stretching the budget a little bit. For the same price I could get an Epson r1800 but have read very mixed reports on them.

On the refiliing thing... i have absolutely no experience of it but would be interested providing it doesnt effect the quality of the final print... to date i have always used OEM cartridges.

On that basis alone then I would seriously consider going for the more expensive 9950.. My reasoning being that Canon really are squeezing their consumable costs through the roof beyond the point of reasonable expense with a full set of cartridges costing just shy of a printer cost (although I'm basing that on the iP4200 here).. OEM inks have been shown by a recent test (on here) to have the best longevity, at least as far as Canon go but given your specification that doesn't seem to be an issue so good quality refilled carts and the 9950 would seem a good option.

Bottom line, were I you I'd hedge on the 9950 and get clued up on how to refill, find a decent bulk ink supplier and accept the learning curve as the cost.. Compared to the Canon learning curve we're engaged in trying to get around their chips I'd say it's the smarter option.

 

[Osage]

I did what I should have done before and did confirm that the i9950 is indeed unchipped--and takes the BCI-6 cartridges---unlike the ix5000 that takes the CLI-5&8 chipped cartridges.

But in US prices---even one A3 color photoprint is going to suck up well over a dollar of OEM cartridge ink---lets see--x10=probably $15.00/wk---over a year--we are talking way more than the difference in price of the printers.---in ink consumable costs alone.

Both printers can be refilled---but the ix5000 will be way way more hassle and will take more of your time to fight----if you go the refill route.--its just so much easier with a non-chipped Canon.

So even if you only save 15x refilling---that $750 yearly costs go down to $50. in refill ink to print the same number of prints---you save $700 right there---basically enough to buy the more expensive printer alone.---over 3 to 5 years---it translate into a bundle.---even at what you consider as a small printing volume.

But you got some great advice from grandad35---on some of the other options for the dedicated photographer--and what can be done to add to print quality in software. Websnail is also right about steves digicams--another good forum.

But this place is a great place to learn about users experiences and various considerations. But in the end its still your money and your choice.

 

[richiehatch]

Thanks guys... I agree with all of you... I will go with the i9950... seems like a better idea and I have seen the quality...!

Thanks a million for the information...

Regards

Richie