I865 or IP4000 Which should I buy (Duplex Not An Issue, Photo Quality Is)
Mikey
Mike
colinco
> Any Help, please
>
> Mike
>
>
>
I don't think you'll find any real difference between these models.
What are your prices? In NZ the iP4000 was introduced at a lower price
than the i865 finished at.
Taliesyn
> Any Help, please
>
> Mike
>
>
I don't have the iP4000 nor an i865. I have an iP5000 and
an i860 (same as the i865 minus CD printing capability).
I just printed scanned magazine images on both printers using high
quality plain (uncoated) paper, with the printers set to "High Quality".
The iP5000 blows away the i860 in both resolution and color rendition.
The i860's result is grainy, with skin tones that are a rather sickly
brown/green. The entire printout is drab, dull and lifeless. The
iP5000's skin tones are pink and the result is really quite stunning. I
keep looking at it in the light. I'm amazed, I've never had a printer
that could satisfactorily print photos on plain paper. It looks
identical to the high quality images we sometimes see in certain
newspapers and magazines that are printed on non glossy paper
Unfortunately I don't have an iP4000 to compare with my iP5000 for you.
-Taliesyn
colinco
photo to plain copy paper on an i865 set for plain paper and it didn't
have any problem with grain or skin tone to the unaided eye but it still
doesn't match photo paper. If you are after photo quality some type of
coated paper is probably essential.
Taliesyn
This was an intentional plain paper test comparing how the above
mentioned printers were able to handle plain paper photos. I do normally
print my photos on the "good stuff" - I got lots of it! I was just doing
a little test for the "Mikey" poster earlier.
Maybe my eyes are better for seeing graininess. You should see how they
compare under a magnifier: the difference is huge.
-Taliesyn
colinco
> Maybe my eyes are better for seeing graininess. You should see how they
> compare under a magnifier: the difference is huge.
>
>
magazines.
Larry
> Any Help, please
>
> Mike
>
>
>
The IP4000 can produce a photo on good quality paper that can be compared
(favourably) to a photo printed by an i960 (a six ink printer).
I had an IP5000 and found no reason to keep it as it held no advantage over
the 4000 in "real world" work.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Caitlin
"Mikey" <Spam...@Suck.com> wrote in message
news:sCdOd.1046$Dr....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Any Help, please
>
> Mike
>
Another important question that people rarely ask - WHY do you want high
photo quality? If it is to produce reports, or other 'short term' documents,
the canons are great - I have the IP4000 and think the picture quality is
superb. BUT people rarely mention photo longevity - if you want to print
photos to keep long term, or hang on your wall, neither of these printers
are for you, and the inks will fade within years, not decades.
Taliesyn
Let's not frighten people needlessly.
I haven't noticed any of my pictures, that were properly stored behind
glass/plastic or in albums, to have any kind of a fading problem.
Unprotected, in the light, yes, they will fade. ALL photos, both digital
and from film, will fade when displayed unprotected.
Longevity is a non issue for me. I can reprint any picture that might
fade, for pennies. And "pennies" is not an exaggeration either.
-Taliesyn
Tom Klimas
news:MPG.1c744af6d...@news.individual.NET:
What precisely is "real world work" in "real world" English?
Caitlin
"Taliesyn" <tali...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:36vtrtF...@individual.net...
I'm not trying to frighten, just inform. How long have you had your inkjet
prints on display? I think you will find scientific testing demonstrates
the difference in ink fade between different inkjet inks, and lab printing.
(There have been many previous posts on this forum linking to such tests) If
that isn't an issue for you that is fine. But it is worth people knowing in
case it is an issue for them.
I work in a professional A/V archive, and can certainly confirm that
traditional lab prints will also eventually fade, and this is also dependant
a great deal on the quality of the printing - washing techniques etc.
However under normal circumstances they will still last substantially longer
than the inkjet prints we are discussing.
If the OP is interested in exploring this there have been several previous
threads on this topic that point to reviews and research comparing the
longevity of prints and reporting estimated fade in years for different
manufacturers. Sadly Canon is one of the poorest. Some of the dedicated
photo printers perform drastically better for fade resistance, and are close
to lab printed photos in stability, so if photo printing is the only need
these may be a better option.
I'll repeat though, I am a very happy owner of the IP4000. But it is
important that people are informed of what they are buying and it's suitable
uses. There tends to be a lot of focus of print quality, and the unwary may
simply assume these prints will still look the same in 50 years. That they
are a direct substitute for lab prints, which they are not. If you are
prepared and expecting to reprint your photos every 5-10 years, and are
confident you will maintain and migrate your digital files over that period,
then short-lived inkjet prints are just fine.
Larry
tkl...@nospam.net says...
REAL WORLD:
Refers to actual day to day work with an item as opposed to a day (or week)
at the magazine reviewers desk printing with the printer and going over the
printout with a magnifier.
also it refers to LOOKING at the results of your work under whatever lighting
you normally live with, and seeing if you can tell the difference between the
prints from one printer ovewr another.
I read equipment reviews and use them to guide me in my choices, but I let
the result of REAL DAY-TO-DAY WORK decide where my money is going.
When I bought my IP4000 I also bought an IP5000 because I though I might have
a use for the higher resolution output from the IP5000.
When it got down to ACTUALLY PRINTING OUT MY WORK PRODUCT (ie "real world") I
couldn't see a difference between the output from the IP5000 and the output
from the IP4000 even with the use of a desk magnifier.
So, when time came to purchase several more printers for several more desks,
the IP4000 won out and saved about $40 per desk.
Thats "Real World" as opposed to whatever world a reviewers "speculations"
and "observations" may take place in. His world is filled with things
different from MY world and YOUR world, and he/she has different axes to
grind.
I thought perhaps my thought on the matter would be helpfull to some who
might not have my 20+ years of experience using ink-jet printers.
Im sorry if my reference to the "Real World" upset you.
It wont happen again.
colinco
> I don't know about the iP4000, but the difference between the iP5000
> and its ancestor, the i860, is unbelievable. Results are not even
> close. The only place they match is in text printing, which any half
> working Lexmark can accomplish also without much sweat.
>
>
You are exagerating or your i860 has something wrong with it. The i860
shouldn't have lines or obvious grain ( without magnification). Some
people complain of banding with most Canon models, it may be the ink
carts as sometimes changing them cures it.
I understand that the iP5000 only kicks into highest resolution/1pl
small droplet set for Canon PPP paper and on Custom quality. If you
don't use those settings the output will be similar to iP4000 (or i860).
You may be able to comment on this.