What printer gives the best results?
Thanks
Steve

> What printer gives the best results?

You should at least consider the ip6000, which is priced pretty low, or
the ip8500 which is priced higher.  The ip6000 at least has the photo
cyan/magenta tanks where the ip4000 has just the five tanks.  While the
ip4000 is a passable photoprinter, the other two models are primarly
photo printers.

This is a tough call... simply because i've used the ip3000, mp760, and
r200 for CD printing.

While i'm not a fan of the r200 model.. I've had many odd issues with
mine.... I gotta say I prefered it over the mp760 (ip4000 all in one
unit) in terms of quality.  It's odd because the drop size is larger
yet even with larger drops the r200 manages to do white text on a
colored background at ultra small fonts.  And the print looks good on
most mediums from fuji to TDK.  Photos are top notch, very high level
of color accuracy.

I switched to the ip3000... in many regards a lesser printer than the
even the ip4000 and definatly the r200.  But franky I feel it's a beter
product.  It can be serviced if need be, you can replace the diaper if
needed, you can replace the head if needed, and based on my limited
experence of a couple months no... i've NO real issues with the printer
leaking, splashing ink everywhere, and generally being a piece of crap.


But the price of the r200 is equal to the OEM ink when on sale, and the
warranty is a year.  If you consider an r200 consider opening the back
door and taking the tube and dumping your ink manualy, otherwise the
diaper isn't designed to be replaced by the end user.  The price is low
enough the printer is totally disposable... so if it breaks after a
year no great loss.

The ip4000 is a better general purpose printer with a strongpoint in
text printing.  Based on my observation it wastes less ink than the
r200.  While I don't feel it's as good a photo printer, copies are a
tad punchy for my taste, extreme warm tones for cool colors, extreme
cool tones for warm colors.   But even with this minor flaw... it's
clearly a better built unit.  Fuji discs require a higher intensity to
look decent than for example TDK.

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080909060600050606060301
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



zakezuke wrote:

>>What printer gives the best results?
>>    
>>
>
>You should at least consider the ip6000, which is priced pretty low, or
>the ip8500 which is priced higher.  The ip6000 at least has the photo
>cyan/magenta tanks where the ip4000 has just the five tanks.  While the
>ip4000 is a passable photoprinter, the other two models are primarly
>photo printers.
>  
>

IP4000 OUT PERFORMS IP6000.  MARGINALLY BETTER ON PHOTOS AND BETTER 
TEXT.  FASTER TOO.  IP6000 HAS LOW DYE INK THAT MAY HAVE A TENDENCY TO 
FADE MORE.
IP6000 IS DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT REALLY USE COMPUTERS TO EDIT 
PHOTOS.

>This is a tough call... simply because i've used the ip3000, mp760, and
>r200 for CD printing.
>
>While i'm not a fan of the r200 model.. I've had many odd issues with
>mine.... I gotta say I prefered it over the mp760 (ip4000 all in one
>unit) in terms of quality.  It's odd because the drop size is larger
>yet even with larger drops the r200 manages to do white text on a
>colored background at ultra small fonts.  And the print looks good on
>most mediums from fuji to TDK.  Photos are top notch, very high level
>of color accuracy.
>  
>

MORE BULLSHIT.  MY FRIEND WHO HAS AN R300 BECAUSE HE WANTS TO PRINT ON 
CD'S (USA) PRINTED THE SAME PHOTOS ON THE CANON IP4000 AND HIS R300.  
BOTH AGREE THAT THE RESULTS OF THE CANON ARE BETTER.
*
AND OF COURSE WE BOTH USE OEM INK.
*

>I switched to the ip3000... in many regards a lesser printer than the
>even the ip4000 and definatly the r200.  But franky I feel it's a beter
>product.  It can be serviced if need be, you can replace the diaper if
>needed, you can replace the head if needed, and based on my limited
>experence of a couple months no... i've NO real issues with the printer
>leaking, splashing ink everywhere, and generally being a piece of crap.
>
>
>But the price of the r200 is equal to the OEM ink when on sale, and the
>warranty is a year.  If you consider an r200 consider opening the back
>door and taking the tube and dumping your ink manualy, otherwise the
>diaper isn't designed to be replaced by the end user.  The price is low
>enough the printer is totally disposable... so if it breaks after a
>year no great loss.
>
>The ip4000 is a better general purpose printer with a strongpoint in
>text printing.  Based on my observation it wastes less ink than the
>r200.  While I don't feel it's as good a photo printer, copies are a
>tad punchy for my taste, extreme warm tones for cool colors, extreme
>cool tones for warm colors.   But even with this minor flaw... it's
>clearly a better built unit.  Fuji discs require a higher intensity to
>look decent than for example TDK.
>
>  
>

--------------080909060600050606060301
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
zakezuke wrote:<br>
<blockquote
 cite="mid1124241787.591591.220120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com"
 type="cite">
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">What printer gives the best results?
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
You should at least consider the ip6000, which is priced pretty low, or
the ip8500 which is priced higher.  The ip6000 at least has the photo
cyan/magenta tanks where the ip4000 has just the five tanks.  While the
ip4000 is a passable photoprinter, the other two models are primarly
photo printers.
  </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
IP4000 OUT PERFORMS IP6000.&nbsp; MARGINALLY BETTER ON PHOTOS AND BETTER
TEXT.&nbsp; FASTER TOO.&nbsp; IP6000 HAS LOW DYE INK THAT MAY HAVE A TENDENCY TO
FADE MORE.<br>
IP6000 IS DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT REALLY USE COMPUTERS TO EDIT
PHOTOS.<br>
<blockquote
 cite="mid1124241787.591591.220120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com"
 type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">
This is a tough call... simply because i've used the ip3000, mp760, and
r200 for CD printing.

While i'm not a fan of the r200 model.. I've had many odd issues with
mine.... I gotta say I prefered it over the mp760 (ip4000 all in one
unit) in terms of quality.  It's odd because the drop size is larger
yet even with larger drops the r200 manages to do white text on a
colored background at ultra small fonts.  And the print looks good on
most mediums from fuji to TDK.  Photos are top notch, very high level
of color accuracy.
  </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
MORE BULLSHIT.&nbsp; MY FRIEND WHO HAS AN R300 BECAUSE HE WANTS TO PRINT ON
CD'S (USA) PRINTED THE SAME PHOTOS ON THE CANON IP4000 AND HIS R300.&nbsp;
BOTH AGREE THAT THE RESULTS OF THE CANON ARE BETTER.<br>
<font color="#3333ff"><big><big><b><br>
AND OF COURSE WE BOTH USE OEM INK.<br>
</b></big></big></font>
<blockquote
 cite="mid1124241787.591591.220120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com"
 type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">
I switched to the ip3000... in many regards a lesser printer than the
even the ip4000 and definatly the r200.  But franky I feel it's a beter
product.  It can be serviced if need be, you can replace the diaper if
needed, you can replace the head if needed, and based on my limited
experence of a couple months no... i've NO real issues with the printer
leaking, splashing ink everywhere, and generally being a piece of crap.


But the price of the r200 is equal to the OEM ink when on sale, and the
warranty is a year.  If you consider an r200 consider opening the back
door and taking the tube and dumping your ink manualy, otherwise the
diaper isn't designed to be replaced by the end user.  The price is low
enough the printer is totally disposable... so if it breaks after a
year no great loss.

The ip4000 is a better general purpose printer with a strongpoint in
text printing.  Based on my observation it wastes less ink than the
r200.  While I don't feel it's as good a photo printer, copies are a
tad punchy for my taste, extreme warm tones for cool colors, extreme
cool tones for warm colors.   But even with this minor flaw... it's
clearly a better built unit.  Fuji discs require a higher intensity to
look decent than for example TDK.

  </pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

--------------080909060600050606060301--

> IP6000 HAS LOW DYE INK THAT MAY HAVE A TENDENCY TO FADE MORE.

So print longavity your saying one is better off considering an Epson?
I couldn't agree with you more.

I'll freely admit the ip6000 isn't canon's best offering.  But it's the
only one that does both CD printing and has light cyan and magenta
inks.

> MY FRIEND WHO HAS AN R300 BECAUSE HE WANTS TO PRINT ON
> CD'S (USA) PRINTED THE SAME PHOTOS ON THE CANON IP4000 AND HIS
> R300.  BOTH AGREE THAT THE RESULTS OF THE CANON ARE BETTER.

Well then your friend should call parts now and buy a tray and pickup a
Canon.   The trays are under $10.00 but there is a waiting list.
Otherwise get one on ebay.  They are usually about $20.  There is no
excuse not to have one.

But I strongly suspect you have no experence CD printing on the canon.
Keep in mind that I own both and have used them side by side.  And yes
even with OEM ink.  The canon does a fine job so long as you keep these
facts in mind.

1.  The print apears light on some discs.  Most notable is Fuji.  This
can be resolved by increasing the intensity to +12 to +15.   Not really
an issue on the Epson

2.  The medium affects the color more so than Epson.  The Canon OEM ink
apears to be watered down... I imagine this is because it's a thermal
bubble jet using silicon-oxide wafers which melt at relativly low
tempratures.  Epson uses micro piezo and doesn't require a state change
in the medium for it to go out the wholes.  Canon requires bubbling,
hince the name bubble jet.

3.  The surface tention on the drops from the canon have a lower
viscosity, they splat and bleed more.  You can easily see this when you
print a black background and white text.    While standard non-color
text on the ip4000 looks sharper... the same can not be said about
color text.

What I find sad is you are yelling at someone who would recomend a
canon over epson since you are totally obsessed with the Canons.  I'm
the first to say it's a good printer.  But even though I feel the r200
is a piece of crap... I have to admit in all honesty the output when it
works is just superb.  It's price is so low that if you buy OEM ink
anyway the printer right now at office depot coasts as much as the OEM
ink.  I have hit 300 CDs on my ip3000 and it's still going strong.

But I imagine you'll scream bullshit once more, that's perfectly fine.
You and your friend can love the output from the ip4000 all you want.
It's a fine general purpose printer and a very passable photo printer.

"steve" <steve@ra2598a.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1705g1l3a78uud8nqdu2n4ultcncee8d78@4ax.com...
> What printer gives the best results?
> Thanks
> Steve

The answer to your question is the ip4000.
Regards 

zakezuke wrote:
>> IP6000 HAS LOW DYE INK THAT MAY HAVE A TENDENCY TO FADE MORE.
>
> So print longavity your saying one is better off considering an Epson?
> I couldn't agree with you more.
>

in that case you don't have a clue...since R200 also uses dye inks. In fact, 
most of Epson's do.
Only R800, which is veeeeeeery expensive uses pigmented ink.
Don't compare apples and oranges...

BTW...ip4000 is better than ip6000. That photo inks.... are just waste of 
money.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:11:29 +0200, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

>zakezuke wrote:
>>> IP6000 HAS LOW DYE INK THAT MAY HAVE A TENDENCY TO FADE MORE.
>>
>> So print longavity your saying one is better off considering an Epson?
>> I couldn't agree with you more.
>>
>
>in that case you don't have a clue...since R200 also uses dye inks. In fact, 
>most of Epson's do.
>Only R800, which is veeeeeeery expensive uses pigmented ink.
>Don't compare apples and oranges...
>
>BTW...ip4000 is better than ip6000. That photo inks.... are just waste of 
>money.

Just ordered an IP4000 i already have the epson R200.So i will be able
to compare(hoping the IP40000 is better!)

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

zakezuke wrote:

>>IP6000 HAS LOW DYE INK THAT MAY HAVE A TENDENCY TO FADE MORE.
>>    
>>
>
>So print longavity your saying one is better off considering an Epson?
>  
>
ABSOLUTELY NOT - IP4000 IS FINE

>I couldn't agree with you more.
>
>I'll freely admit the ip6000 isn't canon's best offering.  But it's the
>only one that does both CD printing and has light cyan and magenta
>inks.
>  
>
SO WHAT.  NO CD PRINTING IN USA

>  
>
>>MY FRIEND WHO HAS AN R300 BECAUSE HE WANTS TO PRINT ON
>>CD'S (USA) PRINTED THE SAME PHOTOS ON THE CANON IP4000 AND HIS
>>R300.  BOTH AGREE THAT THE RESULTS OF THE CANON ARE BETTER.
>>    
>>
>
>Well then your friend should call parts now and buy a tray and pickup a
>Canon.   The trays are under $10.00 but there is a waiting list.
>Otherwise get one on ebay.  They are usually about $20.  There is no
>excuse not to have one.
>  
>

YES THERE IS.  NO SOFTWARE AND NO INSTRUCTIONS AND NOT APPROVED BY CANON

>But I strongly suspect you have no experence CD printing on the canon.
>Keep in mind that I own both and have used them side by side.  And yes
>even with OEM ink.  The canon does a fine job so long as you keep these
>facts in mind.
>
>1.  The print apears light on some discs.  Most notable is Fuji.  This
>can be resolved by increasing the intensity to +12 to +15.   Not really
>an issue on the Epson
>  
>
CAN BE RESOLVED BY NOT USING FUJI

>2.  The medium affects the color more so than Epson.  The Canon OEM ink
>apears to be watered down... I imagine this is because it's a thermal
>bubble jet using silicon-oxide wafers which melt at relativly low
>tempratures.  Epson uses micro piezo and doesn't require a state change
>in the medium for it to go out the wholes.  Canon requires bubbling,
>hince the name bubble jet.
>  
>

EPSON HAS THE NAME OF CLOGJET

>3.  The surface tention on the drops from the canon have a lower
>viscosity, they splat and bleed more.  You can easily see this when you
>print a black background and white text.    While standard non-color
>text on the ip4000 looks sharper... the same can not be said about
>color text.
>
>What I find sad is you are yelling at someone who would recomend a
>canon over epson since you are totally obsessed with the Canons.  I'm
>the first to say it's a good printer.  But even though I feel the r200
>is a piece of crap... I have to admit in all honesty the output when it
>works is just superb.  It's price is so low that if you buy OEM ink
>anyway the printer right now at office depot coasts as much as the OEM
>ink.  I have hit 300 CDs on my ip3000 and it's still going strong.
>  
>

I KNOW YOU CAN BUY THE R200 FOR $50.00

>But I imagine you'll scream bullshit once more, that's perfectly fine.
>You and your friend can love the output from the ip4000 all you want.
>It's a fine general purpose printer and a very passable photo printer.
>
>  
>

With out a doubt.  And that is using OEM ink on both.

lala wrote:

>"steve" <steve@ra2598a.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message 
>news:1705g1l3a78uud8nqdu2n4ultcncee8d78@4ax.com...
>  
>
>>What printer gives the best results?
>>Thanks
>>Steve
>>    
>>
>
>The answer to your question is the ip4000.
>Regards 
>
>
>  
>

MAKE SURE YOU COMPARE BOTH USING OEM INK.  YOU WILL FIND THE IP4000 HAS 
MORE PIZAAZ AND RICHER COLOR.

steve wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:11:29 +0200, "SleeperMan"
><SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>zakezuke wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>>IP6000 HAS LOW DYE INK THAT MAY HAVE A TENDENCY TO FADE MORE.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>So print longavity your saying one is better off considering an Epson?
>>>I couldn't agree with you more.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>in that case you don't have a clue...since R200 also uses dye inks. In fact, 
>>most of Epson's do.
>>Only R800, which is veeeeeeery expensive uses pigmented ink.
>>Don't compare apples and oranges...
>>
>>BTW...ip4000 is better than ip6000. That photo inks.... are just waste of 
>>money.
>>    
>>
>
>Just ordered an IP4000 i already have the epson R200.So i will be able
>to compare(hoping the IP40000 is better!)
>
>  
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>

> SO WHAT.  NO CD PRINTING IN USA

I'm in the usa.  bought a tray and i'm printing just fine.

> YES THERE IS.  NO SOFTWARE AND NO INSTRUCTIONS AND NOT APPROVED


Three points:

1.  There is plenty of software.  You can download canon's cd-label
print, you can download surething.  There are other options too that
support the pxima series but I've not used those like discus.

2.  The instructions are approved by canon, the instructinos are
available in the canon ip4000 service manual.   The tray is available
from partsnow or ebay.

3.  If for some reason you are the sort of person who feels like they
are cheating canon by enabling the CD print feature... order a printer
from europe.  http://www.expansys.com/advsearch.asp?srch=all  They are
spiffy and even give you a a UK to US plug adapter, but I'd reccomend
using your own plug because it's less bulky.  Available at any
electornics store or if you are feeling lazy order QH2-2725-000 from
canon.  But if you are lazy and can spend the extra cash to ship a
ip4000 from europe... more power too you.

If you want CD-printing on the pixma printers in America... there is no
excuse not to get it.

> BY CANON CAN BE RESOLVED BY NOT USING FUJI

So what you are saying is you should buy a printer that won't print on
a popular medium type, a good high quality medium type?

Given the fact you have never printed on CDs on the ip4000, this is not
a subject you can speak about with any sort of experence.  While Fujis
require an intensity of +15 or so, TDK only require an intensity of +10
or so.  You can be lazy an always print CDs set to "dark" and +12
intensity just to be safe.

What's really sad is you are trying to argue someone with direct
experence with the product, both products.  A drawback to the ip4000
for printing discs is the fact that you need to at the very least
adjust your intensity for different media types.

> I KNOW YOU CAN BUY THE R200 FOR $50.00

So what you are saying is that the printer you describe as the clog jet
is so cheap you can just buy new ones?  That's smart advice.

> in that case you don't have a clue...since R200 also uses dye inks. In fact,
> most of Epson's do.
> Only R800, which is veeeeeeery expensive uses pigmented ink.
> Don't compare apples and oranges...

> BTW...ip4000 is better than ip6000. That photo inks.... are just waste of
> money.

Funny thing is I never said the r200 used pigment ink.  But just
because two printers use dye doesn't mean they are using dye of equal
quality.

Try this expiment.  Print on a non printable with both the r200 and the
ip4000.  Observe how the dye ink for the r200 beads up where the ip4000
ink runs.

Anyhow all i'm saying is the r200 ink is a tad more lightfast than the
ip4000 ink.  I noticed this really fast with my cd covers either on
kirkland or epson photo paper.  The Canon ink faided in weeks where the
epson ink I didn't notice it faiding at all.  On the photo paper
plus... a piece I set on the windowsill... the faiding isn't so bad...
since jun30 it still resembles the image I printed.

Also as some can agree the light inks for the canon fade very quickly.
Assuming the pigments are the same and the formula is the same and
assuming the light inks are just watered down editions of the pigmented
inks... one who claims that the light inks faid too fast must also
admit that the other inks are equaly prone to faiding just because
there is more dye they don't fade to nothing as quickly.

As for the ip6000 being a waste of money... could be.  I like the i960
but it's not offered with CD printing.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10:53 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
wrote:

>MAKE SURE YOU COMPARE BOTH USING OEM INK.  YOU WILL FIND THE IP4000 HAS 
>MORE PIZAAZ AND RICHER COLOR.
>
Will do already ordered some OEM ink for the Canon and i always use
OEM ink for the epson

Actually, the C80, C66, C82, C84, C86, CX5200, CX 5400, CX 6400 and 
others all use pigment colorant inks.  The C66 costs well under $100.

Further, even the Epson dye ink printers of today have better fade 
resistant inks than the Canon products, especially those with low dye 
load inks.

Art

SleeperMan wrote:

> zakezuke wrote:
> 
>>>IP6000 HAS LOW DYE INK THAT MAY HAVE A TENDENCY TO FADE MORE.
>>
>>So print longavity your saying one is better off considering an Epson?
>>I couldn't agree with you more.
>>
> 
> 
> in that case you don't have a clue...since R200 also uses dye inks. In fact, 
> most of Epson's do.
> Only R800, which is veeeeeeery expensive uses pigmented ink.
> Don't compare apples and oranges...
> 
> BTW...ip4000 is better than ip6000. That photo inks.... are just waste of 
> money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

zakezuke wrote:
>> in that case you don't have a clue...since R200 also uses dye inks.
>> In fact, most of Epson's do.
>> Only R800, which is veeeeeeery expensive uses pigmented ink.
>> Don't compare apples and oranges...
>
>> BTW...ip4000 is better than ip6000. That photo inks.... are just
>> waste of money.
>
> Funny thing is I never said the r200 used pigment ink.  But just
> because two printers use dye doesn't mean they are using dye of equal
> quality.

You said that canon has low dye ink which fades more...so, what have Epson? 
Pigmented one?

>
> Try this expiment.  Print on a non printable with both the r200 and
> the ip4000.  Observe how the dye ink for the r200 beads up where the
> ip4000 ink runs.
>
> Anyhow all i'm saying is the r200 ink is a tad more lightfast than the
> ip4000 ink.  I noticed this really fast with my cd covers either on
> kirkland or epson photo paper.  The Canon ink faided in weeks where
> the epson ink I didn't notice it faiding at all.  On the photo paper
> plus... a piece I set on the windowsill... the faiding isn't so bad...
> since jun30 it still resembles the image I printed.
>
> Also as some can agree the light inks for the canon fade very quickly.
> Assuming the pigments are the same and the formula is the same and
> assuming the light inks are just watered down editions of the
> pigmented inks... one who claims that the light inks faid too fast
> must also admit that the other inks are equaly prone to faiding just
> because there is more dye they don't fade to nothing as quickly.
>
> As for the ip6000 being a waste of money... could be.  I like the i960
> but it's not offered with CD printing.

I mean it this way:
sure, ip6000 does print better photos. But, since only photo paper costs 
triple of lab made photo, and you must yet to count ink used for printing, 
then fading, you come to conclusion that printed photo comes out at elast 4 
times more expensive than if you send it to a photo lab.
THAT's why it's a waste of money. It is super printer, it's just it's not 
worthed to print photos, unless a few pieces every now and then and for this 
ip4000 is quite excellent.This is again the reason that FADING is a very 
last concern of mine. If i want to have lasting photos, no printer will make 
them, so i'll send a CD to a lab and they will make some. When i print a 
photo, it's just either for fun, or just for the time being, not for storage 
purposes. Note also that pigmented ink (used in R800) does not shine - 
tested with a guy who does have this printer and prints maybe look better (i 
mean colors), but when you look to a photo, that great gloss of ip4000 can't 
be beat by any R800 printed photo. Even gloss optimizer doesn't help any 
much.

What do you guys think of the 5000? Does the smaller droplet size and higher 
res make the difference?  I currently have a i850 with black nozzles finally 
clogging. 

> You said that canon has low dye ink which fades more...so, what have Epson?
> Pigmented one?

I screwed that post one up.   Not sure what I was thinking... other
than I was thinking pigment in the generic sense of stuff that adds
color.  It's a long argument I've had with this guy.  He claims he
never noticed canon inks fading quickly... yet at the same time will
point out the light inks in the ip6000 fade more quickly than the
others.  As you pointed out in another post, at least in the case of
the lexmark the light ink is just the regular ink with more solvent.
I'm sure it is just as likely that the light inks for the epson will
fade more quickly... but not in a couple of weeks.  I'm not talking
mild faiding here i'm talking hard washed out faces and sky turning to
white type fading.

It's my claim that canon bci-6 ink fade more quickly than just about
anything else on the market, it just so happens that the first you see
are the light inks, so anyone who would notice the light inks fading
should think to them selves perhaps the full load inks do as well.  I'm
sure the epsons will as well, but not in the two months I kept test
prints in the window in my car.

> I mean it this way:
> sure, ip6000 does print better photos. But, since only photo paper costs
> triple of lab made photo, and you must yet to count ink used for printing,
> then fading, you come to conclusion that printed photo comes out at elast 4
> times more expensive than if you send it to a photo lab.

What I really want is the i960 head in the ip6000.  While the head size
looks about the same... the i960 has about twice the nozzles so more
print per stroke.

I'll agree gernerally speaking home photoprinting is usually more
expenstive than shop printing.  There are places and sizes where this
is not true, but generally speaking home printing using the OEM inks
cost an arm and a leg.  But we are talking CD printing here, not photo
printing.  I can't for example take my disc down to walmart and have
them print on it.  In fact I don't know anywhere where I could do that
in batches of 1 for a reasonable price.  Even covers... walmart and
costco won't do 5x5 covers nor 8x10.6 covers (or whatever dvd cover
size is).  They will do 8x10 which would cover a jewel case very well,
but not a long box.

I don't own the r800 personaly.  Costs too dang much for what I need,
which is basicly a means to organize my video and cd collection.

> What do you guys think of the 5000? Does the smaller droplet size and higher
> res make the difference?  I currently have a i850 with black nozzles finally
> clogging.

More spendy then the ip6000 or even the ip4200... hard to say.  Some
claim that the ip4000 looks better.  The problem is canon uses
dedicated nozzles where the ip4000 has 2pl and 5pl, the ip5000 has 1pl
to 5pl.  It took canon a while to release another 1pl printer, the
ip4200.  I'd seriously consider one as the few prints i've seen from it
look less punchy than even the ip4000.

zakezuke wrote:
>> You said that canon has low dye ink which fades more...so, what have
>> Epson? Pigmented one?
>
> I screwed that post one up.   Not sure what I was thinking... other
> than I was thinking pigment in the generic sense of stuff that adds
> color.  It's a long argument I've had with this guy.  He claims he
> never noticed canon inks fading quickly... yet at the same time will
> point out the light inks in the ip6000 fade more quickly than the
> others.  As you pointed out in another post, at least in the case of
> the lexmark the light ink is just the regular ink with more solvent.
> I'm sure it is just as likely that the light inks for the epson will
> fade more quickly... but not in a couple of weeks.  I'm not talking
> mild faiding here i'm talking hard washed out faces and sky turning to
> white type fading.
>
> It's my claim that canon bci-6 ink fade more quickly than just about
> anything else on the market, it just so happens that the first you see
> are the light inks, so anyone who would notice the light inks fading
> should think to them selves perhaps the full load inks do as well.
> I'm sure the epsons will as well, but not in the two months I kept
> test prints in the window in my car.
>
>> I mean it this way:
>> sure, ip6000 does print better photos. But, since only photo paper
>> costs triple of lab made photo, and you must yet to count ink used
>> for printing, then fading, you come to conclusion that printed photo
>> comes out at elast 4 times more expensive than if you send it to a
>> photo lab.
>
> What I really want is the i960 head in the ip6000.  While the head
> size looks about the same... the i960 has about twice the nozzles so
> more print per stroke.
>
> I'll agree gernerally speaking home photoprinting is usually more
> expenstive than shop printing.  There are places and sizes where this
> is not true, but generally speaking home printing using the OEM inks
> cost an arm and a leg.  But we are talking CD printing here, not photo
> printing.  I can't for example take my disc down to walmart and have
> them print on it.  In fact I don't know anywhere where I could do that
> in batches of 1 for a reasonable price.  Even covers... walmart and
> costco won't do 5x5 covers nor 8x10.6 covers (or whatever dvd cover
> size is).  They will do 8x10 which would cover a jewel case very well,
> but not a long box.
>
> I don't own the r800 personaly.  Costs too dang much for what I need,
> which is basicly a means to organize my video and cd collection.

i'm glad we come to agree. I never had any photo in direct sun, so i can't 
say, but i do have a number of them in the room on the wall (not direct 
sunlight) for a while now - some of them are still from my late i550 and 
they are not visible faded, so i'm quite happy.
True, we are suppose to talk about CDR printing. I guess this fades out, 
too...But, you should note that you generally keep CDR's in a dark place, so 
this must help a bit...
There were times i used to think that color laser would do the trick, but 
then i found out that they are not near as good as inkjets...damn... 

zakezuke wrote:
>> What do you guys think of the 5000? Does the smaller droplet size
>> and higher res make the difference?  I currently have a i850 with
>> black nozzles finally clogging.
>
> More spendy then the ip6000 or even the ip4200... hard to say.  Some
> claim that the ip4000 looks better.  The problem is canon uses
> dedicated nozzles where the ip4000 has 2pl and 5pl, the ip5000 has 1pl
> to 5pl.  It took canon a while to release another 1pl printer, the
> ip4200.  I'd seriously consider one as the few prints i've seen from
> it look less punchy than even the ip4000.

1pl...only canon and noone else so far...it makes me wonder, is it canon so 
wise or are all others so bloddy stupid?
.... will be any head clog problems...so bloddy small drop...ouch! 

>  True, we are suppose to talk about CDR printing. I guess this fades out,
> too...But, you should note that you generally keep CDR's in a dark place, so
> this must help a bit.

Well... you have the fact that CDRs should be stored in a case  This
doesn't happen all the time, but generlly speaking.

But I see two sceneros assuming standard jewels

1.  Case has a cover also printed from the same printer.  While the
disc is mostly protected from light, whether it be clear plastic or
black plastic, the cover is not really.

2.  The case has no cover in which case doesn't do you all that much
good.

I don't know the cost of printing 8x10 to be honest, well not at the
local costco or walgreens.  Photographs I can get for $2.00 bucks in
8x10 on mondays and fridays.  but this is slightly too small for DVD,
and even for CD you have to enlarge from a negative.   I have no idea
the dye sub cost.

Assuming the estimated yield of 280p @ 5% and a cost of $10ish for 5
tanks ($50) we are looking at 14p at 100% yield at a cost of $50ish or
$3.50 each.  While 100% yield of all the inks in unheard of.. unless
you are photographing gothic churches at night, Let's assume $1.75 to
$3.50.  Could be on par or higher than a real photograph.

A 6 color printer... just for laughs let's assume $11.50 each since
that's a good street price... jumping up to $69.00 each.  Again
assuming a yield of 280p.. or 14p @ 100% yield... This is $4.92... so
the 2.50 to $.5.00 range.

Not that i'd argue that inkjet printing is cheaper than shop printing,
generally it isn't.  I just don't happen to know the price of printing
8x10 at any one of the various shops that offer it, or 8.5 x 11 for
that matter if it's even an option.

zakezuke wrote:
>>  True, we are suppose to talk about CDR printing. I guess this fades
>> out, too...But, you should note that you generally keep CDR's in a
>> dark place, so this must help a bit.
>
> Well... you have the fact that CDRs should be stored in a case  This
> doesn't happen all the time, but generlly speaking.
>
> But I see two sceneros assuming standard jewels
>
> 1.  Case has a cover also printed from the same printer.  While the
> disc is mostly protected from light, whether it be clear plastic or
> black plastic, the cover is not really.
>
> 2.  The case has no cover in which case doesn't do you all that much
> good.
>
> I don't know the cost of printing 8x10 to be honest, well not at the
> local costco or walgreens.  Photographs I can get for $2.00 bucks in
> 8x10 on mondays and fridays.  but this is slightly too small for DVD,
> and even for CD you have to enlarge from a negative.   I have no idea
> the dye sub cost.
>
> Assuming the estimated yield of 280p @ 5% and a cost of $10ish for 5
> tanks ($50) we are looking at 14p at 100% yield at a cost of $50ish or
> $3.50 each.  While 100% yield of all the inks in unheard of.. unless
> you are photographing gothic churches at night, Let's assume $1.75 to
> $3.50.  Could be on par or higher than a real photograph.
>
> A 6 color printer... just for laughs let's assume $11.50 each since
> that's a good street price... jumping up to $69.00 each.  Again
> assuming a yield of 280p.. or 14p @ 100% yield... This is $4.92... so
> the 2.50 to $.5.00 range.
>
> Not that i'd argue that inkjet printing is cheaper than shop printing,
> generally it isn't.  I just don't happen to know the price of printing
> 8x10 at any one of the various shops that offer it, or 8.5 x 11 for
> that matter if it's even an option.

the price indeed varies over countries. Even here, prices in different shops 
are even 100% or more different. But cheapest one is  half of the price of 
Canon Photo paper Glossy+ sheet only, not counting ink used.
For me, photo printing is only for a couple of them since it's not worthed 
to order just a few photos in a shop. If i do that, then i order more, like 
50 or 100 of them. Then it's worthed. 

On 18 Aug 2005 17:01:39 -0700, "zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Switched on the printer and i get this message
Service error 6A00.
Cancel printing and turn the printer off and then back on.
If this doesn't clear the error, see the printer manual for more
detail.
It doesn't say anything about error 6A00 in the manual!
>>  True, we are suppose to talk about CDR printing. I guess this fades out,
>> too...But, you should note that you generally keep CDR's in a dark place, so
>> this must help a bit.
>
>Well... you have the fact that CDRs should be stored in a case  This
>doesn't happen all the time, but generlly speaking.
>
>But I see two sceneros assuming standard jewels
>
>1.  Case has a cover also printed from the same printer.  While the
>disc is mostly protected from light, whether it be clear plastic or
>black plastic, the cover is not really.
>
>2.  The case has no cover in which case doesn't do you all that much
>good.
>
>I don't know the cost of printing 8x10 to be honest, well not at the
>local costco or walgreens.  Photographs I can get for $2.00 bucks in
>8x10 on mondays and fridays.  but this is slightly too small for DVD,
>and even for CD you have to enlarge from a negative.   I have no idea
>the dye sub cost.
>
>Assuming the estimated yield of 280p @ 5% and a cost of $10ish for 5
>tanks ($50) we are looking at 14p at 100% yield at a cost of $50ish or
>$3.50 each.  While 100% yield of all the inks in unheard of.. unless
>you are photographing gothic churches at night, Let's assume $1.75 to
>$3.50.  Could be on par or higher than a real photograph.
>
>A 6 color printer... just for laughs let's assume $11.50 each since
>that's a good street price... jumping up to $69.00 each.  Again
>assuming a yield of 280p.. or 14p @ 100% yield... This is $4.92... so
>the 2.50 to $.5.00 range.
>
>Not that i'd argue that inkjet printing is cheaper than shop printing,
>generally it isn't.  I just don't happen to know the price of printing
>8x10 at any one of the various shops that offer it, or 8.5 x 11 for
>that matter if it's even an option.

You can get the service manual here

http://www.eserviceinfo.com/equipment_mfg/Canon_22.html

AP position error [6A00]  - Sheet feed unit (QM2-1220)- Logic board
ass'y (QM2-1548)*1

I know nothing about this error, doesn't sound good.  This is one of
those errors that you should talk to support first and consider
replacing your printer, or if it's new return it.  I never got this
error before.




steve wrote:
> On 18 Aug 2005 17:01:39 -0700, "zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> Switched on the printer and i get this message
> Service error 6A00.
> Cancel printing and turn the printer off and then back on.
> If this doesn't clear the error, see the printer manual for more
> detail.
> It doesn't say anything about error 6A00 in the manual!

On 19 Aug 2005 11:13:20 -0700, "zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>You can get the service manual here
>
>http://www.eserviceinfo.com/equipment_mfg/Canon_22.html
>
>AP position error [6A00]  - Sheet feed unit (QM2-1220)- Logic board
>ass'y (QM2-1548)*1
>
>I know nothing about this error, doesn't sound good.  This is one of
>those errors that you should talk to support first and consider
>replacing your printer, or if it's new return it.  I never got this
>error before.
>

Cheers,just got a replacement and at the moment testing to see which
prints the better cdrs canon or epson

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:10:53 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
wrote:

>MAKE SURE YOU COMPARE BOTH USING OEM INK.  YOU WILL FIND THE IP4000 HAS 
>MORE PIZAAZ AND RICHER COLOR.

I totally agree the canon is better.The photo's are lot more smoother
and blacks are far better
I won't be using the R200 to print anymore cdrs/dvds

I'd say any Canon printer is more reliable and economical than th
R200, be it a ip4000 or ip5000

The ink tanks lasts far longer and they don'e waste as much ink, I'v
had the ip5000 about three months or slightly over and not a singl
head clean required, 100% prints every time, with the two Epsons 
had, one clogged on the 2nd day, the replacement clogged on the 4t
day plus the fact you had to check each print for faulty printing

Dav

Davy wrote:
> I'd say any Canon printer is more reliable and economical than the
> R200, be it a ip4000 or ip5000.
>
>
.... I've had the ip5000 about three months or slightly over and not a single
> head clean required, ...

That's because Canon printers clean their heads automatically very often. 
Typical almost each time you turn it on, and definitely each time after you 
open the cover to see remaining ink...Note how long it takes before print is 
started...that's because it cleans it's head...