I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
a better job?

Thanks,
Trevor

In article Trevor Holyoak says...
> I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
> this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
> price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
> the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
> range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
> originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
> a better job?
>
> Thanks,
> Trevor
>
Unless you do a lot of text or want Pixma paper handling, the i960 would
be better. The previous model to the iP4000 was the i860.

Trevor Holyoak wrote:

>I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
>this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
>price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
>the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
>range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
>originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
>a better job?

For photos, the i960 is better, but it's not a dramatic difference.

The i960 is a six colour printer with the light photo inks, while the
iP4000 is only a four colour printer. Both use droplet size as small as
2 picoliters.

If you don't mind rebates, looks like tigerdirect.com still has the i960
for $89.99 after $70 in rebates.

"Bill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:NMGdnTLila1Ckz7cRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Trevor Holyoak wrote:
>
>>I am planning to buy a new printer for Christmas. CompUSA has a sale
>>this week on the i960. I see that the new IP4000 is in about the same
>>price range. Which one prints better photos? I'm tempted to go with
>>the newer one, but I believe that the reason they're in the same price
>>range is because the i960 has been discontinued, and so since it was
>>originally a more expensive printer, I'm guessing it might actually do
>>a better job?
>
> For photos, the i960 is better, but it's not a dramatic difference.
>
> The i960 is a six colour printer with the light photo inks, while the
> iP4000 is only a four colour printer. Both use droplet size as small as
> 2 picoliters.

The iP4000 is a 5 tank system. And yes I realize two of these tanks are
black, however because one is the Photo Black it does offer improved output
of the true 4 color/tank models in some photos.

PC Medic wrote:

>> For photos, the i960 is better, but it's not a dramatic difference.
>>
>> The i960 is a six colour printer with the light photo inks, while the
>> iP4000 is only a four colour printer. Both use droplet size as small as
>> 2 picoliters.
>
>The iP4000 is a 5 tank system.

I never said otherwise.
And it's still only a four colour printer.

> And yes I realize two of these tanks are
>black, however because one is the Photo Black it does offer improved output
>of the true 4 color/tank models in some photos.

Actually it doesn't make much difference. Do side-by-side comparisons
and you'll be hard pressed to find a difference. Only in black and white
or photos with a lot of gray gradients could I find a difference. And if
that was a major concern, I would buy a printer that is better suited to
B&W prints.

No, I think the only reason the photo black is there is to draw
customers who don't want to pay for the extra ink of a six colour
system. It's just another example of marketing hype.

"Bill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:1fednenrl4JVWz7cRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> PC Medic wrote:
>
>>> For photos, the i960 is better, but it's not a dramatic difference.
>>>
>>> The i960 is a six colour printer with the light photo inks, while the
>>> iP4000 is only a four colour printer. Both use droplet size as small as
>>> 2 picoliters.
>>
>>The iP4000 is a 5 tank system.
>
> I never said otherwise.
> And it's still only a four colour printer.

Well you see there Bill...there you go again trying to argue a point when
someone points out an inaccuracy in one of your posts. The Canon iP4000 is a
5 Tank/5 Color printer. So you are still incorrect. A quote if this helps
you to swallow the facts a little easier "the Canon PIXMAT iP4000 Photo
Printer is ideal. Its ContrastPLUS 5-color ink system with four dye-based
inks plus a pigment-based black ink...." Now whether you choose to accept
or not, it is considered 5 color even though 2 are varying shades of black.
I even made it a point to mention I was aware of the 2 black tanks as I
suspected you would shoot back a 'no it's not' response.

>
>> And yes I realize two of these tanks are
>>black, however because one is the Photo Black it does offer improved
>>output
>>of the true 4 color/tank models in some photos.
>
> Actually it doesn't make much difference. Do side-by-side comparisons
> and you'll be hard pressed to find a difference. Only in black and white
> or photos with a lot of gray gradients could I find a difference. And if
> that was a major concern, I would buy a printer that is better suited to
> B&W prints.
>

Actually, you can. Do much astronomical or nightscape phototography?
Evidentally not. If you did you would notice that the photo-black tends to
blend better in images with large areas of darkness or low contrast compared
to the pigmented black used for the crisp text printouts.

> No, I think the only reason the photo black is there is to draw
> customers who don't want to pay for the extra ink of a six colour
> system. It's just another example of marketing hype.

And this is just another example of how little you seem to know about how
printers work.
While it may not be a major factor in every photo (something I noted in my
original response) a photo black tank can certainly improve image quality on
certain types of images.

PC Medic wrote:

>> I never said otherwise.
>> And it's still only a four colour printer.
>
>Well you see there Bill...there you go again trying to argue a point when
>someone points out an inaccuracy in one of your posts. The Canon iP4000 is a
>5 Tank/5 Color printer.

Canon calls it a five colour printer, but since it only uses four
colours at a time, that makes it a four colour printer, regardless of
what Canon's marketing department wants you to believe.

"Bill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:mc6dnVpVMbFQ_DncRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> PC Medic wrote:
>
>>> I never said otherwise.
>>> And it's still only a four colour printer.
>>
>>Well you see there Bill...there you go again trying to argue a point when
>>someone points out an inaccuracy in one of your posts. The Canon iP4000 is
>>a
>>5 Tank/5 Color printer.
>
> Canon calls it a five colour printer, but since it only uses four
> colours at a time, that makes it a four colour printer, regardless of
> what Canon's marketing department wants you to believe.

It actually can (and DOES) use all 5 colors at the same time when needed.
This is all dependent on the particular print job being processed by the
printer driver. So it has nothing to do with what marketing wants anyone to
believe, but instead how the printer and driver actually work.

PC Medic wrote:

>> Canon calls it a five colour printer, but since it only uses four
>> colours at a time, that makes it a four colour printer, regardless of
>> what Canon's marketing department wants you to believe.
>
>It actually can (and DOES) use all 5 colors at the same time when needed.
>This is all dependent on the particular print job being processed by the
>printer driver. So it has nothing to do with what marketing wants anyone to
>believe, but instead how the printer and driver actually work.

Really...?

Got a link to those facts?