To anyone with a Canon's IP6000D printer, how do you like it? With 4x6
photo paper loaded in the bottom tray does the paper stay aligned during
printing? I've heard rumors that it doesn't but I never that from an actual
owner. I'm considering buying this model or the newer IP6600D. TIA

> To anyone with a Canon's IP6000D printer, how do you like it?

I don't own them.. but have links to decent reviews

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...anon_i960.html
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...n_ip6000d.html

I'd like to add look at the i960. You can typicaly only find it on
close out but it has more nozzles than the ip6000 but doesn't support
CD printing unless your in a country that sold the i965. the ip6600D
looks interesting but is to new to find any decent reviews.

This is not a good choice if you are going to use a computer to edit and
print. The IP4000 prints somewhat better photos, is faster, and
substantially better business documents.

The 6000 only benefits those who want to print from the camera without
using a computer.

Tim wrote:

>To anyone with a Canon's IP6000D printer, how do you like it? With 4x6
>photo paper loaded in the bottom tray does the paper stay aligned during
>printing? I've heard rumors that it doesn't but I never that from an actual
>owner. I'm considering buying this model or the newer IP6600D. TIA
>
>
>
>
>

GO READ REVIEWS AT www.pcmag.com and www.pcworld.com

zakezuke wrote:

>>To anyone with a Canon's IP6000D printer, how do you like it?
>>
>>
>
>I don't own them.. but have links to decent reviews
>
>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_...anon_i960.html
>http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...n_ip6000d.html
>
>I'd like to add look at the i960. You can typicaly only find it on
>close out but it has more nozzles than the ip6000 but doesn't support
>CD printing unless your in a country that sold the i965. the ip6600D
>looks interesting but is to new to find any decent reviews.
>
>
>

"measekite" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:_ZBXe.327$(E-Mail Removed)...
> This is not a good choice if you are going to use a computer to edit and
> print. The IP4000 prints somewhat better photos, is faster, and
> substantially better business documents.
>
> The 6000 only benefits those who want to print from the camera without using
> a computer.

You're forgetting that the 6000D has automatic duplexing, which the 4000
doesn't. That alone justifies the extra $30 for me! I also would say that --
while you're probably correct that the 4000 produces better photos and is
faster, the average user would be VERY hard pressed to see the difference
(and if they could, they'd probably be looking at something fancier than a
$100 printer anyway?); the 6000D is both fast and produces very good photos,
just as the 4000 does.

The iP4000 doesn't have automatic duplexing???? Where did you get that bit
of information? My iP4000 and iP3000 certainly have that function.
--
Ron

"Joel Kolstad" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "measekite" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:_ZBXe.327$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> This is not a good choice if you are going to use a computer to edit and
>> print. The IP4000 prints somewhat better photos, is faster, and
>> substantially better business documents.
>>
>> The 6000 only benefits those who want to print from the camera without
>> using a computer.
>
> You're forgetting that the 6000D has automatic duplexing, which the 4000
> doesn't. That alone justifies the extra $30 for me! I also would say
> that -- while you're probably correct that the 4000 produces better
> photos and is faster, the average user would be VERY hard pressed to see
> the difference (and if they could, they'd probably be looking at something
> fancier than a $100 printer anyway?); the 6000D is both fast and produces
> very good photos, just as the 4000 does.
>
>

>> This is not a good choice if you are going to use a computer to edit and print.
>> The IP4000 prints somewhat better photos, is faster,
>> and substantially better business documents.

> You're forgetting that the 6000D has automatic duplexing, which the 4000
> doesn't. That alone justifies the extra $30 for me! I also would say that --
> while you're probably correct that the 4000 produces better photos and is
> faster, the average user would be VERY hard pressed to see the difference
> (and if they could, they'd probably be looking at something fancier than a
> $100 printer anyway?); the 6000D is both fast and produces very good photos,
> just as the 4000 does.


Ummm.. the ip4000 has duplexing, as does the ip3000, 5000, 6000D, 8500,
need I go on? The big edge on the ip6000d are the light inks. The big
drawback on the ip6000 is the lack of a dedicated text ink cartridge.
As the printhead nozzle set is smallish, it's not as fast as other
printers in the line which is rather why I bring up the i960... double
the nozzles at the same dpi, which while it doesn't have the dual paper
trays it does support duplex printing IIRC.

This whole "business documents" is some PC world rag sugestion that
boils down to doesn't print text as fast or as well. Valid enough
except anyone considering this printer would be doing so because it's a
photo printer, not a document printer. If you need CD printing, want
the dual trays, and heck even a spiffy 2.5 inch screen to print from
solid state media great... go ip6000 if not the new ip6600D. If you
don't need these extra features... the i960 is most spiffy. But if you
plan to print text documents to any degree it might be wiser to consider
the general purpose printers that are currently in canon's line up which
include the ip3000/ip4000/5000/4200/5200.

"Matt Zukowski" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:dgnt7a$c9i$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> This is not a good choice if you are going to use a computer to edit and
>>> print. The IP4000 prints somewhat better photos, is faster,
> >> and substantially better business documents.
>
>> You're forgetting that the 6000D has automatic duplexing, which the 4000
>> doesn't. That alone justifies the extra $30 for me! I also would say
>> that -- while you're probably correct that the 4000 produces better
>> photos and is faster, the average user would be VERY hard pressed to see
>> the difference (and if they could, they'd probably be looking at
>> something fancier than a $100 printer anyway?); the 6000D is both fast
>> and produces very good photos, just as the 4000 does.
>
>
> Ummm.. the ip4000 has duplexing, as does the ip3000, 5000, 6000D, 8500,
> need I go on? The big edge on the ip6000d are the light inks. The big
> drawback on the ip6000 is the lack of a dedicated text ink cartridge. As
> the printhead nozzle set is smallish, it's not as fast as other printers
> in the line which is rather why I bring up the i960... double the nozzles
> at the same dpi, which while it doesn't have the dual paper trays it does
> support duplex printing IIRC.

I use an i960 - really good photo printer. I use MIS inks and refill.
Excellent color match with OEM and no clogs in a year of use. No duplex
printing, but I use it only for photos and color graphics. I use an HP 5P
laser printer for "business" documents. The i960 has more nozzles and is
reputed to be a better printer than its "upgrade" model, the ip6000. I
think there are still a few new ones in the pipeline.

(snip)

> I use an i960 - really good photo printer. I use MIS inks and refill.
> Excellent color match with OEM and no clogs in a year of use. No duplex
> printing, but I use it only for photos and color graphics. I use an HP 5P
> laser printer for "business" documents. The i960 has more nozzles and is
> reputed to be a better printer than its "upgrade" model, the ip6000. I
> think there are still a few new ones in the pipeline.

Ah... my mistake on the i960... duplex printing requires the DPU-10
Duplex Printing Unit (i860 Series i960 Series).

Joel Kolstad wrote:

>"measekite" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:_ZBXe.327$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>>This is not a good choice if you are going to use a computer to edit and
>>print. The IP4000 prints somewhat better photos, is faster, and
>>substantially better business documents.
>>
>>The 6000 only benefits those who want to print from the camera without using
>>a computer.
>>
>>
>
>You're forgetting that the 6000D has automatic duplexing, which the 4000
>doesn't.
>

YOU JUST GOTTA BE THE DUMMEST PIECE OF ****. I HAVE ONE AND ONE OF THE
BEST FEATURES IS AUTO DUPLEXING. YOU MUST BE AN INFERIOR KID OR A DUMB
OLD FART. GOTO THE CANON SITE AND READ THE SPECS.

> That alone justifies the extra $30 for me!
>
NOT ONLY ARE YOU DUMB BUT REAL STUPID. FROM THE CANON SITE.

ContrastPLUS ink system for true-life photos and laser-quality text
Up to 25 ppm black/up to 17 ppm color
Dual paper path with *built-in 2 sided printing*
Maximum 4800 x 1200 color dpi with microscopic droplets as small as 2
picoliters
Direct photo printing from PictBridge compatible digital cameras & DV
camcorders
Borderless 4" x 6" photographs in approx. 36 seconds

>I also would say that --
>while you're probably correct that the 4000 produces better photos and is
>faster, the average user would be VERY hard pressed to see the difference
>
>
BULLSHIT. AND THE TEXT DOCUMENTS ARE VASTLY SUPERIOR.

WWW.PCMAG.COM

>(and if they could, they'd probably be looking at something fancier than a
>$100 printer anyway?); the 6000D is both fast and produces very good photos,
>just as the 4000 does.
>
>

PLEASE OR PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU WERE DROPPED ON YOUR HEAD AS A BABY. DO
YOU KNOW HOW TO READ. YOU ARE THE TYPE OF KNOW IT ALL KNOW NOTHING THAT
IS ALL OVER. ARE YOU A GOVERNMENT WORKER?

>
>
>