Canon i950 vs. ip6000D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Keith Sheppard, Mar 29, 2005.

  1. It looks like my old Canon i950 ain't going to work any more - at least, not
    without a new print head and the price of that seems perilously close to the
    price of a new printer.

    I thought the modern equivalent was the i965 but it looks like even that is
    obsolete now. It seems to me that the nearest current equivalent to the
    i950 is the ip6000D. Is that right?

    So I am trying to decide whether to fork out about 85 UK pounds for a print
    head to revive my i950, against about 140 UK pounds for a brand new ip6000D.

    The reviews all agree that the resolution of the ip6000D is 4800x1200. Some
    sites list the same resolution for the i950 whilst others claim the i950 was
    4800x2400. So my first question...

    Does anyone know definitively whether the ip6000D has the same resolution as
    the i950, or whether it is theoretically inferior?

    If it is the case that moving from i950 to ip6000D means going to a lower
    resolution printer, I guess the next question is will I actually notice?
    Anyone have a view as to whether 4800x1200 is noticably worse than
    4800x2400?

    Although it's not a must-have for me, does the ip6000D print labels on CDs?
    Again, this is a question upon which the reviews seem to disagree.

    In addition to answers to these specific questions, any comments or general
    observations on the rival merits of the i950 and ip6000D?

    Regards
    Keith
    Keith Sheppard, Mar 29, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Keith Sheppard

    Larry Guest

    In article <dDf2e.200$>,
    says...
    > It looks like my old Canon i950 ain't going to work any more - at least, not
    > without a new print head and the price of that seems perilously close to the
    > price of a new printer.
    >
    >
    >


    Is it a clogged print head or some other failure??

    The printhead on an i950/i960 can be cleared this way:

    Get some household Ammonia, and some distilled water.

    Make a mix that is about 10% household ammonia and 90% distilled water.

    Pour about a quarter cup of this mix into a paper or foam cup and warm it a
    few seconds in a microwave (dont boil it, just heat it up to 100 or 120
    degrees F

    Fold up a soft paper napkin or paper towell into a small pad and place it on
    a saucer and soak it with the Warm Ammonia/water.

    Place the print head print side down on the wet pad and let it soak for a few
    minutes.

    Now load an eye dropper with the water/Ammonia and after the head has soaked
    for a few minutes pick it up and put it back into the printer.

    Now using the eye dropper place a drop or two of the liquid onto each intake
    on the head, then quickly place the ink cartridges (with ink in them) into
    place and run a few cleaning cycles, then do a print test.

    If it doesn't work right away, do the whole thing twice more. If it hasnt
    cleared by then, it probably wont clear.


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry, Mar 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Keith Sheppard

    Matt Ion Guest

    Keith Sheppard wrote:

    > The reviews all agree that the resolution of the ip6000D is 4800x1200. Some
    > sites list the same resolution for the i950 whilst others claim the i950 was
    > 4800x2400. So my first question...
    >
    > Does anyone know definitively whether the ip6000D has the same resolution as
    > the i950, or whether it is theoretically inferior?


    I found an old spec sheet for the i950, and it lists as "4800x2400*"
    with a footnote "*see specifications". I can't find the other specs to
    which it's referring, but I expect this means the 2400 is "conditional",
    interpolated, or in some other manner not a "true" physical spec.

    > If it is the case that moving from i950 to ip6000D means going to a lower
    > resolution printer, I guess the next question is will I actually notice?
    > Anyone have a view as to whether 4800x1200 is noticably worse than
    > 4800x2400?


    I doubt you'd notice the difference - newer printers have improved
    technology (such as what Canon calls "FINE" - see http://tinyurl.com/66ojx

    > Although it's not a must-have for me, does the ip6000D print labels on CDs?
    > Again, this is a question upon which the reviews seem to disagree.


    Disgree how? It either does or it doesn't - I have the 6000D, there is
    no feature on it that I can see for printing directly on CDs, nor is
    there anything about it in the manual, so if a review says it does,
    they're full of shit.

    > In addition to answers to these specific questions, any comments or general
    > observations on the rival merits of the i950 and ip6000D?


    Never having used an i950, I can't compare them directly, but I can tell
    you the iP6000D is a damn nice machine; I particularly like the
    direct-print-from-card with the built-in LCD.
    Matt Ion, Mar 29, 2005
    #3
  4. Keith Sheppard

    Larry Guest

    In article <nWg2e.839077$Xk.747392@pd7tw3no>, says...
    > Disgree how? It either does or it doesn't - I have the 6000D, there is
    > no feature on it that I can see for printing directly on CDs, nor is
    > there anything about it in the manual, so if a review says it does,
    > they're full of shit.
    >


    It might be that the 6000D prints to disks in its European and Japanese
    version but not in the US version.

    The ip4000 is that way. You can read in some reviews how well it prints cd's,
    but those are NOT reviews of the US version of the printer.


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry, Mar 29, 2005
    #4
  5. Keith Sheppard

    Winston Guest

    You might try posting this to comp.periphs.printers.

    Winston


    Keith Sheppard wrote:
    > It looks like my old Canon i950 ain't going to work any more - at

    least, not
    > without a new print head and the price of that seems perilously close

    to the
    > price of a new printer.
    >
    > I thought the modern equivalent was the i965 but it looks like even

    that is
    > obsolete now. It seems to me that the nearest current equivalent to

    the
    > i950 is the ip6000D. Is that right?
    >
    > So I am trying to decide whether to fork out about 85 UK pounds for a

    print
    > head to revive my i950, against about 140 UK pounds for a brand new

    ip6000D.
    >
    > The reviews all agree that the resolution of the ip6000D is

    4800x1200. Some
    > sites list the same resolution for the i950 whilst others claim the

    i950 was
    > 4800x2400. So my first question...
    >
    > Does anyone know definitively whether the ip6000D has the same

    resolution as
    > the i950, or whether it is theoretically inferior?
    >
    > If it is the case that moving from i950 to ip6000D means going to a

    lower
    > resolution printer, I guess the next question is will I actually

    notice?
    > Anyone have a view as to whether 4800x1200 is noticably worse than
    > 4800x2400?
    >
    > Although it's not a must-have for me, does the ip6000D print labels

    on CDs?
    > Again, this is a question upon which the reviews seem to disagree.
    >
    > In addition to answers to these specific questions, any comments or

    general
    > observations on the rival merits of the i950 and ip6000D?
    >
    > Regards
    > Keith
    Winston, Mar 29, 2005
    #5
  6. Keith Sheppard

    bmoag Guest

    You may want to look into Epson printers. I have both Canon and Epson
    printers and color management is distinctly more reliable with Epson's print
    drivers.
    bmoag, Mar 29, 2005
    #6
  7. Keith Sheppard

    David Adams Guest

    Have a look at the epson r range , I have an r300 which is old hat now
    almost , less than 100 quid now , prints on cd's extremely well and does a
    damn fine job on decent paper , they probably do a better one now but have
    always been impressed with them as a reseller and user of them.




    "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    news:THj2e.16706$...
    > You may want to look into Epson printers. I have both Canon and Epson
    > printers and color management is distinctly more reliable with Epson's
    > print drivers.
    >
    David Adams, Mar 29, 2005
    #7
  8. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:14:43 GMT, Matt Ion <>
    wrote:

    >Keith Sheppard wrote:
    >
    >> The reviews all agree that the resolution of the ip6000D is 4800x1200. Some
    >> sites list the same resolution for the i950 whilst others claim the i950 was
    >> 4800x2400. So my first question...
    >>
    >> Does anyone know definitively whether the ip6000D has the same resolution as
    >> the i950, or whether it is theoretically inferior?

    >
    >I found an old spec sheet for the i950, and it lists as "4800x2400*"
    >with a footnote "*see specifications". I can't find the other specs to
    >which it's referring, but I expect this means the 2400 is "conditional",
    >interpolated, or in some other manner not a "true" physical spec.
    >
    >> If it is the case that moving from i950 to ip6000D means going to a lower
    >> resolution printer, I guess the next question is will I actually notice?
    >> Anyone have a view as to whether 4800x1200 is noticably worse than
    >> 4800x2400?

    >
    >I doubt you'd notice the difference - newer printers have improved
    >technology (such as what Canon calls "FINE" - see http://tinyurl.com/66ojx
    >
    >> Although it's not a must-have for me, does the ip6000D print labels on CDs?
    >> Again, this is a question upon which the reviews seem to disagree.

    >
    >Disgree how? It either does or it doesn't - I have the 6000D, there is
    >no feature on it that I can see for printing directly on CDs, nor is
    >there anything about it in the manual, so if a review says it does,
    >they're full of shit.
    >
    >> In addition to answers to these specific questions, any comments or general
    >> observations on the rival merits of the i950 and ip6000D?

    >
    >Never having used an i950, I can't compare them directly, but I can tell
    >you the iP6000D is a damn nice machine; I particularly like the
    >direct-print-from-card with the built-in LCD.



    The biggest fault of the iP6000D is it is VERY slow.
    Oliver Costich, Mar 30, 2005
    #8
  9. Keith Sheppard

    measekite Guest

    Keith Sheppard wrote:

    >It looks like my old Canon i950 ain't going to work any more - at least, not
    >without a new print head and the price of that seems perilously close to the
    >price of a new printer.
    >
    >I thought the modern equivalent was the i965 but it looks like even that is
    >obsolete now. It seems to me that the nearest current equivalent to the
    >i950 is the ip6000D. Is that right?
    >
    >


    You will find that the IP4000, a 5 cart (4 color photo) PIXMA printer is
    better than the IP6000D in that it can produce better results faster and
    cheaper and costs around $40.00 less. The only people who should get the
    IP6000 are those who want to or need to print without a computer using
    the tiny LCD. Those people are a printer mgf dream.

    I have an IP4000 and other than the i9900 or the IP8500 it is the best
    and the best value in all regards.

    >So I am trying to decide whether to fork out about 85 UK pounds for a print
    >head to revive my i950, against about 140 UK pounds for a brand new ip6000D.
    >
    >The reviews all agree that the resolution of the ip6000D is 4800x1200. Some
    >sites list the same resolution for the i950 whilst others claim the i950 was
    >4800x2400. So my first question...
    >
    >Does anyone know definitively whether the ip6000D has the same resolution as
    >the i950, or whether it is theoretically inferior?
    >
    >If it is the case that moving from i950 to ip6000D means going to a lower
    >resolution printer, I guess the next question is will I actually notice?
    >Anyone have a view as to whether 4800x1200 is noticably worse than
    >4800x2400?
    >
    >Although it's not a must-have for me, does the ip6000D print labels on CDs?
    >Again, this is a question upon which the reviews seem to disagree.
    >
    >

    The European version of the IP4000 prints directly on Cds.

    >In addition to answers to these specific questions, any comments or general
    >observations on the rival merits of the i950 and ip6000D?
    >
    >Regards
    >Keith
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    measekite, Mar 30, 2005
    #9
  10. Keith Sheppard

    measekite Guest

    Matt Ion wrote:

    > Keith Sheppard wrote:
    >
    >> The reviews all agree that the resolution of the ip6000D is
    >> 4800x1200. Some
    >> sites list the same resolution for the i950 whilst others claim the
    >> i950 was
    >> 4800x2400. So my first question...
    >>
    >> Does anyone know definitively whether the ip6000D has the same
    >> resolution as
    >> the i950, or whether it is theoretically inferior?

    >
    >
    > I found an old spec sheet for the i950, and it lists as "4800x2400*"
    > with a footnote "*see specifications". I can't find the other specs
    > to which it's referring, but I expect this means the 2400 is
    > "conditional", interpolated, or in some other manner not a "true"
    > physical spec.
    >
    >> If it is the case that moving from i950 to ip6000D means going to a
    >> lower
    >> resolution printer, I guess the next question is will I actually notice?
    >> Anyone have a view as to whether 4800x1200 is noticably worse than
    >> 4800x2400?

    >
    >
    > I doubt you'd notice the difference - newer printers have improved
    > technology (such as what Canon calls "FINE" - see
    > http://tinyurl.com/66ojx
    >
    >> Although it's not a must-have for me, does the ip6000D print labels
    >> on CDs?
    >> Again, this is a question upon which the reviews seem to disagree.

    >
    >
    > Disgree how? It either does or it doesn't - I have the 6000D, there
    > is no feature on it that I can see for printing directly on CDs, nor
    > is there anything about it in the manual, so if a review says it does,
    > they're full of shit.



    No! They are full of knowledge. You see the European version of Canon
    Printers can print directly on CDs. For some reason Epson and Canon are
    duking it out in the US; therefore no of the Canons have this feature.

    >
    >
    >> In addition to answers to these specific questions, any comments or
    >> general
    >> observations on the rival merits of the i950 and ip6000D?

    >
    >
    > Never having used an i950, I can't compare them directly, but I can
    > tell you the iP6000D is a damn nice machine; I particularly like the
    > direct-print-from-card with the built-in LCD.
    measekite, Mar 30, 2005
    #10
  11. >>> It looks like my old Canon i950 ain't going to work any more - at least,
    not
    >>> without a new print head and the price of that seems perilously close to

    the
    >>> price of a new printer.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>Is it a clogged print head or some other failure??


    I _think_ it's some other failure. After reading about it on the web, I
    cleared out all the print nozzles using a can of compressed air spray. It
    made a horrible mess but seemed to do the job. Nozzle check print-out
    improved after that - _when_ I can get the darned thing to print at all:

    The symptoms are:

    1) Most often, when I turn it on, I get 7 orange light flashes on the
    printer. The manual says this means duff print head. I have managed to fix
    this problem on some occasions by removing the head, cleaning the contacts
    and then putting it back again. It seems to be getting harder and harder to
    fix this one, though.

    2) I don't know if you are familiar with the Canon print head alignment
    pattern but when I run it, the last column in the second row (I think it's
    labelled h) contains NO blocks at all.

    3) Printing a colour photo still has a green tinge which, curiously, is
    _much_ worse at the top and bottom of the print.

    In view of the rather bizarre symptoms I was slightly dubious as to whether
    even a new print head would fix everything.

    Keith
    Keith Sheppard, Mar 30, 2005
    #11
  12. >>The biggest fault of the iP6000D is it is VERY slow.
    That actually doesn't worry me too much. I'm quite happy to set it to work
    printing something then go off and do something else.

    I don't have very high volumes of photo print work.

    Incidentally, is the ip6000D OK for occasional text output or would you
    recommend having a separate text printer?

    Keith
    Keith Sheppard, Mar 30, 2005
    #12
  13. >>No! They are full of knowledge. You see the European version of Canon
    >>Printers can print directly on CDs. For some reason Epson and Canon are
    >>duking it out in the US; therefore no of the Canons have this feature.


    So, as a European (Brit) that could be good news for me.

    Keith
    Keith Sheppard, Mar 30, 2005
    #13
  14. >>You may want to look into Epson printers. I have both Canon and Epson
    >>printers and color management is distinctly more reliable with Epson's

    print
    >>drivers.


    I have looked into both. I think my main priority is running costs and I
    can get ink cartridges for the Canon (particularly if I am prepared to buy
    third party) _much_ cheaper than Epson ink.

    I was more than happy with the colour print quality of my previous Canon
    (i950).

    Keith
    Keith Sheppard, Mar 30, 2005
    #14
  15. >>You will find that the IP4000, a 5 cart (4 color photo) PIXMA printer is
    >>better than the IP6000D in that it can produce better results faster and
    >>cheaper and costs around $40.00 less.


    I had assumed that the addition of Photo Cyan and Photo Magenta would make a
    noticable difference to colour print quality. My old printer had these
    extra colours and I didn't want to take a backward step. However I must
    admit I have never directly compared output from a 4 colour printer with a 6
    colour printer head-to-head. Does anyone have any comments or observations
    on how much difference the extra two colours really make?

    Keith
    Keith Sheppard, Mar 30, 2005
    #15
  16. On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:37:21 GMT, "Keith Sheppard"
    <> wrote:

    >>>The biggest fault of the iP6000D is it is VERY slow.

    >That actually doesn't worry me too much. I'm quite happy to set it to work
    >printing something then go off and do something else.
    >
    >I don't have very high volumes of photo print work.
    >
    >Incidentally, is the ip6000D OK for occasional text output or would you
    >recommend having a separate text printer?
    >
    >Keith
    >


    Not if you're fussy about the text quality. The iP4000/5000 are better
    choices if you need good text and willing to give up a very little on
    the photo side.
    Oliver Costich, Mar 30, 2005
    #16
  17. On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:43:35 GMT, "Keith Sheppard"
    <> wrote:

    >>>You will find that the IP4000, a 5 cart (4 color photo) PIXMA printer is
    >>>better than the IP6000D in that it can produce better results faster and
    >>>cheaper and costs around $40.00 less.

    >
    >I had assumed that the addition of Photo Cyan and Photo Magenta would make a
    >noticable difference to colour print quality. My old printer had these
    >extra colours and I didn't want to take a backward step. However I must
    >admit I have never directly compared output from a 4 colour printer with a 6
    >colour printer head-to-head. Does anyone have any comments or observations
    >on how much difference the extra two colours really make?
    >
    >Keith
    >
    >


    From Steves-digicams.com:

    iP6000D-The printing quality is on par with Canon's previous 6-color
    printers (the i960 and i9100) and uses exactly the same Canon ink
    tanks. I hate to sound like a broken record but, the prints from the
    iP6000D are the equal of anything that you'd get from the best photo
    inkjet printers.

    iP4000-There's no doubt that the $499 8-color Canon i9900 printer is
    superior but for the vast majority of today's digital camera users who
    print mostly 4x6" size prints with the occasional 5x7" or letter-size
    print, the $149 iP4000 is going to be more than satisfactory. Looking
    at the printed output it's difficult to justify buying a dedicated 6-
    or 8-color photo printer, it's amazing what Canon is doing with just
    three colors.
    Oliver Costich, Mar 30, 2005
    #17
  18. Thanks Oliver, I think ;)

    I thought I'd made up my mind but now you've got me wondering again. I
    think for my own peace of mind what I really need to do is get my hands on
    two similar pictures printed on the ip4000 and ip6000 so I can see for
    myself what the difference is. I wonder if any local (UK) stores might be
    able to help.

    Keith
    Keith Sheppard, Mar 31, 2005
    #18
  19. Keith Sheppard

    measekite Guest

    The Canon IP4000 is better than the IP6000D. While you give up the LCD
    that is really not the way to edit and print photos, you get a much
    faster printer, better photo results and a lot better business documents
    and graphic results. It is also about $40.00 cheaper. After rebate at
    Frys today you can get one for $100.00. That is a great deal.

    Keith Sheppard wrote:

    >>>The biggest fault of the iP6000D is it is VERY slow.
    >>>
    >>>

    >That actually doesn't worry me too much. I'm quite happy to set it to work
    >printing something then go off and do something else.
    >
    >I don't have very high volumes of photo print work.
    >
    >Incidentally, is the ip6000D OK for occasional text output or would you
    >recommend having a separate text printer?
    >
    >Keith
    >
    >
    >
    >
    measekite, Mar 31, 2005
    #19
  20. Keith Sheppard

    measekite Guest

    I just observed the following. Adobe Photoshop (PS7 in my case)
    supplies a test picture called testpict.tif. I printed this picture
    without any editing from PS7 to my Canon IP4000 using Canon OEM inks
    and Canon Photopaper Pro. I cannot even conceive of anything being
    better. Maybe the i9900 but not with this photo.

    This is a professional photo and can really test the best the printer
    can do. Get your hands on it, maybe Adobe with send it to you, and buy
    some Canon Photo Paper PRo and do some printing at stores who may have a
    working model. You be the judge.

    Keith Sheppard wrote:

    >>>You will find that the IP4000, a 5 cart (4 color photo) PIXMA printer is
    >>>better than the IP6000D in that it can produce better results faster and
    >>>cheaper and costs around $40.00 less.
    >>>
    >>>

    >
    >I had assumed that the addition of Photo Cyan and Photo Magenta would make a
    >noticable difference to colour print quality. My old printer had these
    >extra colours and I didn't want to take a backward step. However I must
    >admit I have never directly compared output from a 4 colour printer with a 6
    >colour printer head-to-head. Does anyone have any comments or observations
    >on how much difference the extra two colours really make?
    >
    >Keith
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    measekite, Mar 31, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. what to do
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,010
    odottahw
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. AE Neuman

    Canon i950 HELP

    AE Neuman, Jul 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    732
    Christian
    Jul 15, 2003
  3. Lawrence King

    Canon i950: can it print 8.5 x 11?

    Lawrence King, Jul 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    552
    Charles Eaves
    Jul 19, 2003
  4. KennyJr

    Canon iP6000D printer.

    KennyJr, Oct 4, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    443
    Knightcrawler
    Oct 16, 2005
  5. Matt Ion

    Canon ip6000D help?

    Matt Ion, Sep 8, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    287
    Matt Ion
    Sep 8, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page