Confused over IP4000 and I865 Review. Which is better?

Have just read the scores for the Canon IP4000 and I865 and it gave the I865
Higher marks overall.

This included the Photo Quality prints.

Are they basing it on an older review where the I865s score would have been
higher than the printers at the time.

So the question is, What is the better printer, the IP4000 of the I865 (I
have a chance of getting either)

Duplex is not an issue.

Thanks

Mike

Mikey wrote:

>So the question is, What is the better printer, the IP4000 of the I865 (I
>have a chance of getting either)

Basically they are the same printers. They use the same identical
printheads in both models with the same engines. The only difference is
the case, dual paper trays, and duplex unit. Ink cartridges are also the
same and very easy to refill if you're interested in that.

Side by side comparisons show they have the same output quality.

>Duplex is not an issue.

If you don't care about that feature and can get the i865 at a really
good price, I'd go for the i865.

If prices are similar, then consider that the Canon Pixma series finally
has a paper cassette tray like the HP models, which helps to keep the
dust out.

Thanks for the quick reply.
The review I saw had all the past scores printed in a grid like format, so
it's really a bit misleading, as the scores for the earlier printer must
have been based on earlier printers.

I'm just a little loathed to get rid of my trusty Epson Photo 900 as I still
think the output is brill, if a bit slow.

I'm still deciding on an Epson R300 or IP400 which are bargains at the
moment.

I really can't make up my mind. Photos and DVD printing quality are of
prime importance.

Mike

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:BradnWBvIMz2EVXfRVn-3g@golden.net...
> Mikey wrote:
>
> >So the question is, What is the better printer, the IP4000 of the I865 (I
> >have a chance of getting either)
>
> Basically they are the same printers. They use the same identical
> printheads in both models with the same engines. The only difference is
> the case, dual paper trays, and duplex unit. Ink cartridges are also the
> same and very easy to refill if you're interested in that.
>
> Side by side comparisons show they have the same output quality.
>
> >Duplex is not an issue.
>
> If you don't care about that feature and can get the i865 at a really
> good price, I'd go for the i865.
>
> If prices are similar, then consider that the Canon Pixma series finally
> has a paper cassette tray like the HP models, which helps to keep the
> dust out.

Bill wrote:

>Mikey wrote:
>
>
>
>>So the question is, What is the better printer, the IP4000 of the I865 (I
>>have a chance of getting either)
>>
>>
>
>Basically they are the same printers. They use the same identical
>printheads in both models with the same engines. The only difference is
>the case, dual paper trays, and duplex unit. Ink cartridges are also the
>same and very easy to refill if you're interested in that.
>
>Side by side comparisons show they have the same output quality.
>
>

The drivers are different and they control the result to some extent.

>
>
>>Duplex is not an issue.
>>
>>
>
>If you don't care about that feature and can get the i865 at a really
>good price, I'd go for the i865.
>
>If prices are similar, then consider that the Canon Pixma series finally
>has a paper cassette tray like the HP models, which helps to keep the
>dust out.
>
>

Mikey wrote:

>Thanks for the quick reply.
>The review I saw had all the past scores printed in a grid like format, so
>it's really a bit misleading, as the scores for the earlier printer must
>have been based on earlier printers.

Every review has to be taken into context for the times it was written,
so yes the scores can be misleading.

>I'm just a little loathed to get rid of my trusty Epson Photo 900 as I still
>think the output is brill, if a bit slow.

If it works, keep it. Print speed for home users is often over-rated as
most people don't care if it takes a few minutes for a good photo.

If you're pumping out dozens of photos on the weekend, then an inkjet
printer is not the way to go as it's too expensive, unless you refill.
Getting a lab to run off prints is much cheaper.

>I'm still deciding on an Epson R300 or IP400 which are bargains at the
>moment.

If you're into refilling, I'd suggest a Canon as the clear cartridges
are a breeze to refill. Otherwise it doesn't matter.

>I really can't make up my mind. Photos and DVD printing quality are of
>prime importance.

I think both will do CD/DVD printing in Europe, and both make fine
photos.

Mikey wrote:

> Thanks for the quick reply.
> The review I saw had all the past scores printed in a grid like format, so
> it's really a bit misleading, as the scores for the earlier printer must
> have been based on earlier printers.
>
> I'm just a little loathed to get rid of my trusty Epson Photo 900 as I still
> think the output is brill, if a bit slow.
>
> I'm still deciding on an Epson R300 or IP400 which are bargains at the
> moment.
>

The i865 (i860 in North America) is already a discontinued model heavily
discounted in stores. The iP4000 will probably shortly be discontinued
because I have seen drastic price drops which ALWAYS signify a sudden
urge by printer makers to reduce stock levels before new models arrive.

If I was you I'd go for the still current model, iP4000, in the belief
that Canon has ironed out some of the bugs in the older i860 model. Or,
you can wait for the next generation in the hope that they have ironed
out some of the bugs in the current iP4000 ;-) . . .

As for rolling the dice (die?) between R300 or the iP4000, I'm glad it's
your call and not mine. But because I refill, I believe it's a far
easier task with the Canons, they don't have any irksome electronic
chips on their cartridges.

-Taliesyn

> I really can't make up my mind. Photos and DVD printing quality are of
> prime importance.
>
> Mike
>
> "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:BradnWBvIMz2EVXfRVn-3g@golden.net...
>
>>Mikey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So the question is, What is the better printer, the IP4000 of the I865 (I
>>>have a chance of getting either)
>>
>>Basically they are the same printers. They use the same identical
>>printheads in both models with the same engines. The only difference is
>>the case, dual paper trays, and duplex unit. Ink cartridges are also the
>>same and very easy to refill if you're interested in that.
>>
>>Side by side comparisons show they have the same output quality.
>>
>>
>>>Duplex is not an issue.
>>
>>If you don't care about that feature and can get the i865 at a really
>>good price, I'd go for the i865.
>>
>>If prices are similar, then consider that the Canon Pixma series finally
>>has a paper cassette tray like the HP models, which helps to keep the
>>dust out.
>
>
>

> I'm still deciding on an Epson R300 or IP400 which are bargains at the
> moment.

The epson from what i've observed with the default ink offering is a
tad more lightfast than canon's default offering, even in my area of
grey skies and rain. I know the r200 personaly and I found it an all
around better photo printer esp when it comes in terms of out of the
box color accuracy and use of the light inks make for beautiful skies.
White text on a colored background is better on the epson enough though
its drop size is larger.

The canon... keep in mind that my only reference is the mp760...
identical in print specs to the ip4000. I class this as a better all
around printer. I'm told CD printing is rough on the head... which at
least in Canons case you can replace it with ease. Inks cost much less
too, and that pigment black would be a decent choice on CDs as it's
less prone to faiding, but you'll have to ask someone wiser if you can
print in text and photo mode and have the use the pigment for the
text... I mostly print straight .jpgs from cd label print and till now
always on the lesser ip3000.

My choice is the Canon... easy to refill and detachable head were my
main reasons for going with this. The low cost of text printing was a
major plus as well as I can pretty much ditch my old lasers. I'm still
debating whether to keep or sell my r200. The r300 isn't a bad choice
but those extra two carts are going to add to the cost to operate..

zakezuke wrote:

>The canon... Inks cost much less too,

I guess the big marketing scheme about ink tanks is working just fine.

The costs for ink from all of the big three printer companies, Canon,
Epson, and HP, all run roughly the same. Canon is not any cheaper. Just
do an online comparison of prices and page yields and you'll find out
for yourself.

Don't buy into the hype that Canon is cheaper.

>My choice is the Canon... easy to refill and detachable head were my
>main reasons for going with this.

I've owned Canon, but I can't see how a detachable head is an advantage.
You can't really do anything with it, and replacement costs are about
80% of a whole new printer (a bit cheaper on Ebay).

If the printhead fails within the warranty period, it's easier to swap
it out. That's an advantage...a rare one though. And since Canon claims
18,000 pages total for the life of the head, that's typically well
beyond the warranty period.

Outside of warranty, replacement is not really a viable option.

> The low cost of text printing was a
>major plus as well as I can pretty much ditch my old lasers.

Are you talking about refilling costs? If so, then yes I agree ink costs
can be very low.

But if you mean OEM ink costs, Canon is not any cheaper than the
competition, and all inkjets are substantially higher than any laser
printer.

> I've owned Canon, but I can't see how a detachable head is an advantage.
> You can't really do anything with it, and replacement costs are about
> 80% of a whole new printer (a bit cheaper on Ebay).

You can clean it, which is something I wanted to do with my epson
printhead. That's handy.

I worked out the math, assuming I went with OEM ink and... and put away
$1.00 per cart or $5.00 each refill... after the 15th I could get a new
head if I wanted. That should cover about 7500 of black at 5% yield,
and another 5700 pages of color at 5% yield per color. If I go oem
inks the price would jump from $40 a refill for my ip3000 to $45, and
for my mp760 $50 to $55 assuming I need one after this long.

Yeah, by this point it would be wise to consider another printer......
but for an AIO printer it's kind of nice to have the option to keep it
in service even if it does cost $80 for the head.

> and since Canon claims 18,000 pages total for the life of the head,
> that's typically well beyond the warranty period.

Actually I believe the number is closer to 7,200 for the black.using
the ISO JIS-SCID test.... so divide that number by 1/2 or 1/3 for
reality. The offical numbers are as follows

Black 1,500 character pattern 7,200 pages
Color A4, 7.5% duty per color pattern 5,400 pages
A4, photo, borderless printing 300 pages
4 x 6, photo, borderless printing 3,600 pages
Postcard, photo, borderless printing 1,500 pages

> But if you mean OEM ink costs, Canon is not any cheaper than the
> competition, and all inkjets are substantially higher than any laser
> printer.

Not exactly true in all cases.... there is the imageCLASS series of
lasers that floats between 2.8c/page and 3.5c/page... for black.

zakezuke wrote:

>> I've owned Canon, but I can't see how a detachable head is an advantage.
>> You can't really do anything with it, and replacement costs are about
>> 80% of a whole new printer (a bit cheaper on Ebay).
>
>You can clean it, which is something I wanted to do with my epson
>printhead. That's handy.

Well in the 16 months I had the Canon i850, it never clogged a single
nozzle. I know from first hand experience that Epsons are known to clog
regularly. So having a removable printhead that doesn't clog is a moot
point.

I believe the only reason Canon went with a replaceable printhead is
marketing hype. They know Epsons clog, so they used this as an excuse to
claim the "convenience" of a non-permanent printhead. But since you
can't just walk down to the local store and buy a new printhead for
$20-30, it's just more hype to sell printers.

>I worked out the math, assuming I went with OEM ink and... and put away
>$1.00 per cart or $5.00 each refill... after the 15th I could get a new
>head if I wanted.

It doesn't matter if you save money with third party inks or not. The
cost of the printhead is still the same.

If you're using refills, you're not doing it so you can buy another
printhead, you're doing it to save money on ink costs. And if you have
to buy a new printhead with the ink savings, then you've just negated
that savings and you're back at the beginning with nothing.

>> and since Canon claims 18,000 pages total for the life of the head,
>> that's typically well beyond the warranty period.
>
>Actually I believe...
>Black 1,500 character pattern 7,200 pages
>Color A4, 7.5% duty per color pattern 5,400 pages
>A4, photo, borderless printing 300 pages
>4 x 6, photo, borderless printing 3,600 pages
>Postcard, photo, borderless printing 1,500 pages

That's just a simple breakdown of typical use. Total number of pages is
18,000 as I said before.