Canon iP4000 or iP5000? For graphic output

[Patrick]

So I'm considering ditching the HP8450 I just got (good photos, great
speed,

inferior graphics). And have seen ultra raves for the Canon iP printers,
especially the iP5000 (the ip4000 too, but not quite as much).

Would this work for graphic output like making greeting cards, using
non-proprietary paper, creating images with lots of flat color and
transparency?

Any downside to these printers?

Sarah,

Once again a simple question to this group has gone off topic and a slagging
match has ensued (not taking any sides).

To get back to your questions.

I use the IP5000 and love it. I have compared against the IP4000 and would
take the IP5000 because of the way I use it.
I only use OEM ink, but that is a personal choice. I only use my printer for
photos on Folex paper. I have in the past used after market ink, and had
both good and bad experiences with them. If you decide to use third party
ink ask for recommendations from people using the printer you decide on. Ink
is like everything else there are good and bad.

As I said earlier, the IP5000 is slower than the IP4000. I should have
qualified that by adding that this is the case when printing at the max
resolution (which I always do).

The PCMAG review is the only review I've seen that states the IP4000 is
better with photos. BTW the pcmag review did not do a head to head review.
It reviewed the IP5000 by itself having previously reviewed the IP4000. So
there were no direct comparison testing. With my own eyes I have seen the
opposite. There are plenty of reviews out there that state the IP5000 holds
its own with more expensive printers including 6 and 8 cartridge printers.
In my opinion the IP5000 is the much better printer and worth the premium
Having said that, the IP4000 is a very good printer which if it is being
used as a more general printer with a more 'disposable output' and not
solely for photos then the saving in cost may make the IP4000 worth serious
consideration.

 

[Caitlin]

I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But why
does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to the
speed.
Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just repeats what I've
already stated.

With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000 photos
be
substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?

If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.

Thanks,
Sarah

I have read some speculation that this may be because PCMag may not have
tested the IP5000 at maximum photo quality setting, but only standard
setting. It's also possible it could have been a driver problem I suppose
(Hopefully fixed). I have the IP4000 and am very happy with it (though I
intend to get a pigment printer for the ink stability factor eventually) so
I can't make any comment about the actual difference - but I agree it
doesn't make sense that the IP5000 would be lower quality in photos.

Maybe you could ask for a dealer to show you samples from both? Logically
the IP5000 should be better, and both printers get good reviews in general,
it's just PCmag is the only one that has reviewed both (as far as I know)

 

[Patrick]

Maybe you could ask for a dealer to show you samples from both? Logically
the IP5000 should be better, and both printers get good reviews in general,
it's just PCmag is the only one that has reviewed both (as far as I know)

I don't know where the OP is from and I don't know whether this service is
provided globally but Canon's europe site will allow you to upload your own
image which they will then print on the printers you are considering. Here
is the europe url so you can see what I'm talking about;

http://www.yourprint.canon-europe.com/index.html

 

[measekite]

I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But why
does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to the speed.
Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just repeats what I've
already stated.

With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000 photos be
substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?

If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.

I am not quite sure why PC Mag results were that way. Maybe you could
write a letter to the editor. I heard that the 1pl nozzles are not used
when printing photos. While it does not make sense I am sure the
explanation would be interesting. Another thing that you could do is
contact Canon Tech Support with a copy of the PC Mag test report in hand
and discuss it with them. If you do please publish your findings here.

 

[measekite]

Sarah,

Once again a simple question to this group has gone off topic and a slagging
match has ensued (not taking any sides).

To get back to your questions.

I use the IP5000 and love it. I have compared against the IP4000 and would
take the IP5000 because of the way I use it.
I only use OEM ink, but that is a personal choice.

AND A WISE CHOICE ALSO

I only use my printer for
photos on Folex paper. I have in the past used after market ink, and had
both good and bad experiences with them. If you decide to use third party
ink ask for recommendations from people using the printer you decide on. Ink
is like everything else there are good and bad.

And because most of the ink junkies will not tell you what they are
selling you could wind up buying the same problem inks from various
vendors under their different webstore labels. There are some good ones
but if your print load is average or less then OEM is the best choice.

As I said earlier, the IP5000 is slower than the IP4000. I should have
qualified that by adding that this is the case when printing at the max
resolution (which I always do).

The PCMAG review is the only review I've seen that states the IP4000 is
better with photos. BTW the pcmag review did not do a head to head review.
It reviewed the IP5000 by itself having previously reviewed the IP4000. So
there were no direct comparison testing. With my own eyes I have seen the
opposite. There are plenty of reviews out there that state the IP5000 holds
its own with more expensive printers including 6 and 8 cartridge printers.
In my opinion the IP5000 is the much better printer and worth the premium
Having said that, the IP4000 is a very good printer which if it is being
used as a more general printer with a more 'disposable output' and not
solely for photos then the saving in cost may make the IP4000 worth serious
consideration.

The one thing that I have never seen addresses is as follows. The wide
format editiors choice in most of the reviews is the Canon i9900. Its
narrow carriage running mate the IP8500 (same 8 color print engine) that
came out after the IP5000 is a 2 picoliter system. If the trend is
going to 1pl and it is better why would Canon bring out their flagship
printer and not use 1pl? That is the question.

 

[measekite]

Sure would like to have this service in the USA. Would be great to be
an independent service and all brands of printers and many different
papers were included.

 

[Brian Potter]

I am not quite sure why PC Mag results were that way. Maybe you could
write a letter to the editor. I heard that the 1pl nozzles are not
used when printing photos.

Incorrect. It use 1 pl droplets for photos.

 

[Davy]

Sarah

Simply get on to Canon and order some print samples from their
automated service.

You'll have to put two orders in, one for the 4000 and one for the
5000. If you read the PC Mag review take note of the time they say it
takes to print a photo, this to me and one or two other suggest they
have not got it on the highest setting. Now then, does it not seem
odd that it produces better pastels, better graphics and better text
through the added vertical resolution, the photo quality has just
gotta be improved, the details in the picture has got to be improved
likewise.

Now if the picture is one step below the 5000 lets have some sensible
suggestions instead of quotes without explanations as we see so many
times throughout this forum.

 

[Sarah Feliz]

Okay, I went and bought the iP5000. Am comparing it to the HP8450 -- one of
them is going back, and I'm trying to figure out which one works best.

Right off the bat, the HP photos look better (without tweaking): crisper,
cleaner, less saturated. On the graphic side, the Canon works better hands
down.

What I'd like to do is figure out the Canon settings so I get better results
for both photos and graphics. So here are a few questions which I hope the
kind people of this forum will have answers for:

1. Where is the setting for highest photo resolution? I don't see any such a
option. In fact, people have commented on the slowness of the iP5000 and I
don't find it to be slow. Perhaps I'm missing something?

And what's the "High Resolution Paper" setting for? Is that what I should be
using? Even though the paper I'm using is actually listed?

Also, often this option is greyed out. Why?

2. What setting do I use for printing on Matte NON-PHOTO paper? By this I do
not mean "plain paper" either (or do I?) -- I'm talking about greeting card
paper, watercolor paper, textured paper, often non-coated. On my ancient HP
895C (which I adored), not only were there settings for "greeting cards" but
it produced stunning prints on most of these diverse papers (even though
they weren't "inkjet" processed). Can I expect such results with the iP5000?

The only settings I see that might be appropriate are: Matte Photo Paper,
Other Photo Paper, Plain Paper. Which is the right one?

I tried to print a few digital paintings (not photos) on several of these
kinds of papers but the printer seems to throw ink at the papers and the
subtlety of the brushwork in the paintings is gone. Is there any way I can
optimize the settings to get better results?

3. In Print Mode, I see the following options:

* Printing top quality photo
* Printing tables
* Printing composite doc
* Detailed setting

There¹s no indication anywhere on how to use these settings? What does each
of these settings accomplish? Is ³printing tables² a code word for
graphics? What does ³composite doc² mean? Photo plus text? Graphic plus
text? When is it appropriate to use ³Detailed Setting?² Inside this latter
setting there are additional settings, including the possibility of choosing
between Graphic and Photo? When do I use this, as opposed to ³printing top
quality photo?²

When I have a digital painting, do I need the ³graphic² or the ³photo²
setting? What does each one do? Does anyone know? It¹s exasperating not to
have the manual go over these things in detail. How is one supposed to
figure all of this out?

If anyone has experimented with these settings and come up with good
results, I¹d love to hear from you.

I have a week to play with both printer. Then I must return one. Please
help me make that decision.

Many thanks,

Sarah

 

[measekite]

Incorrect. It use 1 pl droplets for photos.

If you are correct than why do you think that PC MAG rated the !P4000
above the IP5000 for fotos?

 

[Mister Max]

measekite <[email protected]> posted something or other.

Meeskite, are you aware of the Yiddish meaning of your name?

•meeskite - (rhymes with 'bees might') noun. Literally it means ugly face.
Commonly used to describe an unattractive girl. In The Concert, Barbra
looks at the photo of herself at age 13 and says, "What a meeskite."

Are you that ugly?

- Max

 

[measekite]

Okay, I went and bought the iP5000. Am comparing it to the HP8450 --
one of
them is going back, and I'm trying to figure out which one works best.

Right off the bat, the HP photos look better (without tweaking): crisper,
cleaner, less saturated. On the graphic side, the Canon works better
hands
down.

With the Canon you should use either Canon Photo Paper Pro or go to
Costco and buy Kirkland Glossy Photo Paper at 1/7 of the cost producing
98% as good a result. And be sure to use the proper profile. Also, Canon
photos prints are usually more saturated and vibrant that for some
tastes need to be toned down.

What I'd like to do is figure out the Canon settings so I get better
results
for both photos and graphics. So here are a few questions which I hope
the
kind people of this forum will have answers for:

1. Where is the setting for highest photo resolution? I don't see
any such a
option.

Choose the Canon Photo Paper Pro paper and use the High settings. If you
use Photoshop set the profile for PR1. Like I said before use either
Canon Photo Paper Pro or Costco/Kirkland Glossy Photo Paper. This is
made in Switzerland and my be made by Ilford.

In fact, people have commented on the slowness of the iP5000 and I
don't find it to be slow. Perhaps I'm missing something?

It is faster than most but not as fast as the IP5000.

And what's the "High Resolution Paper" setting for? Is that what I
should be
using? Even though the paper I'm using is actually listed?

Use the Canon Photo Paper Pro setting for that paper and also for
Kirkland Photo Glossy.

 

[measekite]

measekite <[email protected]> posted something or other.

Meeskite, are you aware of the Yiddish meaning of your name?

•meeskite - (rhymes with 'bees might') noun. Literally it means ugly face.
Commonly used to describe an unattractive girl. In The Concert, Barbra
looks at the photo of herself at age 13 and says, "What a meeskite."

Are you that ugly?

- Max

No, is your sister?

 

[Burt]

Re: Canon iP4000 or iP5000? SETTINGS (NEW)Sarah - look for Taliesyn's recent postings on this newsgroup and email him directly. He uses an IP5000 and I'm sure he will help you with these questions.
Okay, I went and bought the iP5000. Am comparing it to the HP8450 -- one of
them is going back, and I'm trying to figure out which one works best.

Right off the bat, the HP photos look better (without tweaking): crisper,
cleaner, less saturated. On the graphic side, the Canon works better hands
down.

What I'd like to do is figure out the Canon settings so I get better results
for both photos and graphics. So here are a few questions which I hope the
kind people of this forum will have answers for:


1. Where is the setting for highest photo resolution? I don't see any such a
option. In fact, people have commented on the slowness of the iP5000 and I
don't find it to be slow. Perhaps I'm missing something?

And what's the "High Resolution Paper" setting for? Is that what I should be
using? Even though the paper I'm using is actually listed?

Also, often this option is greyed out. Why?

2. What setting do I use for printing on Matte NON-PHOTO paper? By this I do
not mean "plain paper" either (or do I?) -- I'm talking about greeting card
paper, watercolor paper, textured paper, often non-coated. On my ancient HP
895C (which I adored), not only were there settings for "greeting cards" but
it produced stunning prints on most of these diverse papers (even though
they weren't "inkjet" processed). Can I expect such results with the iP5000?

The only settings I see that might be appropriate are: Matte Photo Paper,
Other Photo Paper, Plain Paper. Which is the right one?

I tried to print a few digital paintings (not photos) on several of these
kinds of papers but the printer seems to throw ink at the papers and the
subtlety of the brushwork in the paintings is gone. Is there any way I can
optimize the settings to get better results?

3. In Print Mode, I see the following options:


a.. Printing top quality photo
b.. Printing tables
c.. Printing composite doc
d.. Detailed setting


There's no indication anywhere on how to use these settings? What does each
of these settings accomplish? Is "printing tables" a code word for
graphics? What does "composite doc" mean? Photo plus text? Graphic plus
text? When is it appropriate to use "Detailed Setting?" Inside this latter
setting there are additional settings, including the possibility of choosing
between Graphic and Photo? When do I use this, as opposed to "printing top
quality photo?"

When I have a digital painting, do I need the "graphic" or the "photo"
setting? What does each one do? Does anyone know? It's exasperating not to
have the manual go over these things in detail. How is one supposed to
figure all of this out?

If anyone has experimented with these settings and come up with good
results, I'd love to hear from you.

I have a week to play with both printer. Then I must return one. Please
help me make that decision.

Many thanks,

Sarah

 

[Sarah Feliz]

So no dice for artistic non-photo papers for the IP5000?

What printer does one use for such papers?

Thanks,
Sarah

 

[Caitlin]

So no dice for artistic non-photo papers for the IP5000?

What printer does one use for such papers?

Thanks,
Sarah

On 5/11/05 7:33 PM, in article
[email protected], "measekite"

*snip*

Umm... no it doesn't necessarily mean that - it means measkite is our
resident ill-informed troll and his advice it to be taken with a very big
grain of salt. I have him kilfilled, so have not seen all his responses to
this thread. Personally I have only used Canon and Kodak paper, and the
results on Kodak paper were very poor. You might also try posting your
question here: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_forum.php?id=40

 

[Larry]

I understand the iP5000's increased quality for graphics and text. But why
does the iP 4000 come out on top for photos? I'm not referring to the speed.
Your email doesn't really answer my question: it just repeats what I've
already stated.

With higher resolution and smaller picoliter, shouldn't the iP5000 photos be
substantially *better* not worse than those from the iP4000?

If you don't know the answer, it's okay say so.

Thanks,
Sarah

The performance of a printer sometimes doesnt follow logic I guess.

I purchased both of them and ended up returning the ip5000 and getting a
second ip4000.

The performance of the 4000 was superior on photos. I think the 1 picolitre
head wasnt as good as Canon expected.

 

[Patrick]

Re: Canon iP4000 or iP5000? SETTINGS (NEW)>If anyone has experimented with these settings and come up with good

results, I'd love to hear from you.

I have a week to play with both printer. Then I must return one. Please
help me make that decision.

I no longer use windows and so can't use Canons driver. This means I can't help you with advice about settings.

Have a read through this review;

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/printers/Pixma 5000/page-1.htm

Page four details test prints including some settings - you may find it helpfull. There are comparison outputs including the HP8450.
Paper choice does make a difference. The ip5000 would have come with a sample pack of paper - have you tried that? I get great results with Canon, Folex, and Fuji paper.

 

[Patrick]

So no dice for artistic non-photo papers for the IP5000?

What printer does one use for such papers?

I no longer use windows and so can't use Canons driver. This means I can't
help you with advice about settings.

Have a read through this review;

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/printers/Pixma 5000/page-1.htm

Page four details test prints including some settings - you may find it
helpfull. There are comparison outputs including the HP8450 and Canon's
IP8500.
Paper choice does make a difference. The ip5000 would have come with a
sample pack of paper - have you tried that? I get great results with Canon,
Folex, and Fuji paper.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Maybe he's tremendously handsome and it's an ironic name, or maybe he's
a she and she's stunningly attractive. Nice thing a but the internet,
you never really know who you are comunicating with.

Art