Long Day's Journey Into Printers . . .

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PTRAVEL, Aug 3, 2003.

  1. PTRAVEL

    PTRAVEL Guest

    As I continue my odyssey to a wide-carriage high-quality printer, I've
    stumbled across the Canon I9100. I haven't seen the output of it yet, but a
    Canon rep told me it's identical to the I950. I've seen the output of that
    and was very impressed -- smooth, subtle tonal variation and no bronzing at
    all on glossy paper. With the naked eye, I couldn't tell the difference
    between the output of this printer and a photographic print. It also looked
    better than the S9000. I'm off to New York, shortly, so I hope to be able
    to seen an I9100 in the flesh (J&R and B&H both have them). If it's as good
    as the I950 print out, I think that's the one I'll be getting.

    Has anyone had any experience with this printer?
    PTRAVEL, Aug 3, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. PTRAVEL

    Bob O`Bob Guest

    PTRAVEL wrote:
    >
    > As I continue my odyssey to a wide-carriage high-quality printer, I've
    > stumbled across the Canon I9100. I haven't seen the output of it yet, but a
    > Canon rep told me it's identical to the I950. I've seen the output of that
    > and was very impressed -- smooth, subtle tonal variation and no bronzing at
    > all on glossy paper. With the naked eye, I couldn't tell the difference
    > between the output of this printer and a photographic print. It also looked
    > better than the S9000. I'm off to New York, shortly, so I hope to be able
    > to seen an I9100 in the flesh (J&R and B&H both have them). If it's as good
    > as the I950 print out, I think that's the one I'll be getting.
    >
    > Has anyone had any experience with this printer?



    I like Canon. I recently bought one.

    But if a "Canon rep" actually personally lied to me like that, I very
    much
    doubt I'd be buying another Canon for a long time. All one has to do is
    check the specs (e.g. minimum droplet volume) on their own web site
    to see that "identical" is an unsupportable assertion.

    And if it wasn't really a "Canon rep" then that would be one store I'd
    be
    unlikely to purchase anything from for quite some time, instead.

    It's easy to believe the i9100 produces better prints than the much
    older
    S9000, but almost impossible to belive it's quite as good as the i950.
    If it was actually the same, you can bet it would be called "i9500"
    instead.



    Bob
    Bob O`Bob, Aug 3, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PTRAVEL

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "Bob O`Bob" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > PTRAVEL wrote:
    > >
    > > As I continue my odyssey to a wide-carriage high-quality printer, I've
    > > stumbled across the Canon I9100. I haven't seen the output of it yet,

    but a
    > > Canon rep told me it's identical to the I950. I've seen the output of

    that
    > > and was very impressed -- smooth, subtle tonal variation and no bronzing

    at
    > > all on glossy paper. With the naked eye, I couldn't tell the difference
    > > between the output of this printer and a photographic print. It also

    looked
    > > better than the S9000. I'm off to New York, shortly, so I hope to be

    able
    > > to seen an I9100 in the flesh (J&R and B&H both have them). If it's as

    good
    > > as the I950 print out, I think that's the one I'll be getting.
    > >
    > > Has anyone had any experience with this printer?

    >
    >
    > I like Canon. I recently bought one.
    >
    > But if a "Canon rep" actually personally lied to me like that, I very
    > much
    > doubt I'd be buying another Canon for a long time. All one has to do is
    > check the specs (e.g. minimum droplet volume) on their own web site
    > to see that "identical" is an unsupportable assertion.


    I can't find the specs on Canon's website, at least not for droplet volume.
    However, I did find this at
    http://www.digitalmediadesigner.com/2003/02_feb/news/canon2030227.htm :
    ------------------------------------------
    On the printer front, Canon has introduced a new portable inkjet, two new
    BubbleJet Direct models and two photo printers. The new BubbleJets include
    the i450 Color Bubble Jet and i470D Photo Printer. Both offer 4,800 x 1,200
    DPI resolution and combined 5 picoliter and 2 picoliter ink drops. Both also
    support direct printing via USB, and the i470D also includes a memory card
    reader. The models support paper sizes up to 8.5" x 11" and will run
    standalone or attached to systems running Mac OS 9, Mac OS X or Windows. The
    i450 will sell for $99.99; The i470D will sell for $149.99. Both will be
    available in April.

    New photo printers include the i950 and i9100. The i9100 replaces the S9000
    in Canon's high-end lineup. It offers borderless printing up to 13" x 19" at
    a resolution of 4,800 x 1,200 DPI. Few details of the i950 were available at
    press time, though Canon says it uses six individual ink tanks and offers
    3,072 nozzles, all outputting 2 picoliter ink droplets.
    ----------------------------------------
    According to the article, which quotes Canon, both the i950 and th i9100
    output 2 picoliter droplets. But then I found this:

    "There is a difference between the 9100 and the 950... The 9100 really isn't
    a wide carraige 950. The 9100 only prints in 4 pico-liter drops where the
    950 uses 2 picoliter drops. The 2 picoliter drops really seems to help the
    950 create superb prints. The 9100 does go up to 4800 vertical dpi though.
    Can't remember the horizontal dpi at the moment...

    I think I'll wait for the "i9500" with 2 picoliter drops... "


    I've found this confirmed at other sites.

    >
    > It's easy to believe the i9100 produces better prints than the much
    > older
    > S9000, but almost impossible to belive it's quite as good as the i950.


    From what I've read, the i9100 eliminates slight banding that was visible
    with S9000 output.

    > If it was actually the same, you can bet it would be called "i9500"
    > instead.


    I wonder why Canon didn't simply make a wide-carriage 950 and do exactly
    that.

    >And if it wasn't really a "Canon rep" then that would be one store I'd

    be
    >unlikely to purchase anything from for quite some time, instead.


    It was a Canon rep -- at least he had a "Canon" shirt on. There was also an
    Epson rep there.


    >
    >
    >
    > Bob
    PTRAVEL, Aug 3, 2003
    #3
  4. On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 18:08:05 -0700, Bob O`Bob <>
    wrote:

    >PTRAVEL wrote:
    >>
    >> As I continue my odyssey to a wide-carriage high-quality printer, I've
    >> stumbled across the Canon I9100. I haven't seen the output of it yet, but a
    >> Canon rep told me it's identical to the I950. I've seen the output of that
    >> and was very impressed -- smooth, subtle tonal variation and no bronzing at
    >> all on glossy paper. With the naked eye, I couldn't tell the difference
    >> between the output of this printer and a photographic print. It also looked
    >> better than the S9000. I'm off to New York, shortly, so I hope to be able
    >> to seen an I9100 in the flesh (J&R and B&H both have them). If it's as good
    >> as the I950 print out, I think that's the one I'll be getting.
    >>
    >> Has anyone had any experience with this printer?

    >
    >
    >I like Canon. I recently bought one.
    >
    >But if a "Canon rep" actually personally lied to me like that, I very
    >much
    >doubt I'd be buying another Canon for a long time. All one has to do is
    >check the specs (e.g. minimum droplet volume) on their own web site
    >to see that "identical" is an unsupportable assertion.
    >
    >And if it wasn't really a "Canon rep" then that would be one store I'd
    >be
    >unlikely to purchase anything from for quite some time, instead.
    >
    >It's easy to believe the i9100 produces better prints than the much
    >older
    >S9000, but almost impossible to belive it's quite as good as the i950.
    >If it was actually the same, you can bet it would be called "i9500"
    >instead.
    >
    >
    >
    > Bob




    Here in NZ its EPSON EPSON & EPSON as they can print archival prints plus the
    heads do not ware out like the Canon ones..

    Problem with Bubble jets is that the Ink corrodes the heater elements.
    Greg Townsend, Aug 3, 2003
    #4
  5. PTRAVEL

    PTRAVEL Guest

    "Greg Townsend" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 18:08:05 -0700, Bob O`Bob <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >PTRAVEL wrote:
    > >>
    > >> As I continue my odyssey to a wide-carriage high-quality printer, I've
    > >> stumbled across the Canon I9100. I haven't seen the output of it yet,

    but a
    > >> Canon rep told me it's identical to the I950. I've seen the output of

    that
    > >> and was very impressed -- smooth, subtle tonal variation and no

    bronzing at
    > >> all on glossy paper. With the naked eye, I couldn't tell the

    difference
    > >> between the output of this printer and a photographic print. It also

    looked
    > >> better than the S9000. I'm off to New York, shortly, so I hope to be

    able
    > >> to seen an I9100 in the flesh (J&R and B&H both have them). If it's as

    good
    > >> as the I950 print out, I think that's the one I'll be getting.
    > >>
    > >> Has anyone had any experience with this printer?

    > >
    > >
    > >I like Canon. I recently bought one.
    > >
    > >But if a "Canon rep" actually personally lied to me like that, I very
    > >much
    > >doubt I'd be buying another Canon for a long time. All one has to do is
    > >check the specs (e.g. minimum droplet volume) on their own web site
    > >to see that "identical" is an unsupportable assertion.
    > >
    > >And if it wasn't really a "Canon rep" then that would be one store I'd
    > >be
    > >unlikely to purchase anything from for quite some time, instead.
    > >
    > >It's easy to believe the i9100 produces better prints than the much
    > >older
    > >S9000, but almost impossible to belive it's quite as good as the i950.
    > >If it was actually the same, you can bet it would be called "i9500"
    > >instead.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Bob

    >
    >
    >
    > Here in NZ its EPSON EPSON & EPSON as they can print archival prints plus

    the
    > heads do not ware out like the Canon ones..


    I suspect that's why Canon has replaceable heads. I can see why
    professionals would be concerned with archival quality, but as someone who
    does photography just for the fun of it, it doesn't really matter to me.
    Print quality, on the other hand, is of paramount concern, which brings me
    back full-circle. Since the i9100 doesn't duplicate the quality of the i950
    (or does it?), I'm back to looking at the two Epsons (2200 and 1280).

    >
    > Problem with Bubble jets is that the Ink corrodes the heater elements.
    >
    >
    PTRAVEL, Aug 3, 2003
    #5
  6. PTRAVEL

    Jon Noble Guest

    The i9100 has the same specs as the i950. 4800x2400 dpi. Go for the i9100, I
    did (waited an extra 4 months for it to start shipping). If you like, send
    me your home address and I'll send you a 4x6; I think you'll agree it's the
    equal of the i950).

    And Canon's heads don't burn out any sooner than Epson heads; however, Epson
    heads DO clog constantly. That's why I replaced an otherwise perfectly good
    Epson 780 with the Canon i9100. (And of course, if an Epson head burns out,
    you can't replace it yourself.)

    -Jon
    (Don't use my reply address, it's for spammers. My email is
    jon.nobleATcomcastDOTnet)


    "PTRAVEL" <> wrote in message
    news:bgidl5$of2gl$-berlin.de...
    > I suspect that's why Canon has replaceable heads. I can see why
    > professionals would be concerned with archival quality, but as someone who
    > does photography just for the fun of it, it doesn't really matter to me.
    > Print quality, on the other hand, is of paramount concern, which brings me
    > back full-circle. Since the i9100 doesn't duplicate the quality of the

    i950
    > (or does it?), I'm back to looking at the two Epsons (2200 and 1280).
    Jon Noble, Aug 3, 2003
    #6
  7. PTRAVEL

    Mick Ruthven Guest

    I keep reading that the droplet size of the i950 is half the size (2 pl)
    then the i9100 (4pl). What about that difference?

    "Jon Noble" <> wrote in message
    news:Tv9Xa.54890$Ho3.8083@sccrnsc03...
    > The i9100 has the same specs as the i950. 4800x2400 dpi. Go for the i9100,

    I
    > did (waited an extra 4 months for it to start shipping). If you like, send
    > me your home address and I'll send you a 4x6; I think you'll agree it's

    the
    > equal of the i950).
    >
    > And Canon's heads don't burn out any sooner than Epson heads; however,

    Epson
    > heads DO clog constantly. That's why I replaced an otherwise perfectly

    good
    > Epson 780 with the Canon i9100. (And of course, if an Epson head burns

    out,
    > you can't replace it yourself.)
    >
    > -Jon
    > (Don't use my reply address, it's for spammers. My email is
    > jon.nobleATcomcastDOTnet)
    Mick Ruthven, Aug 3, 2003
    #7
    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. Wade365

    Bruce Lee: Warrior's Journey

    Wade365, Oct 27, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    372
    Wade365
    Oct 27, 2003
  2. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    559
    DVD Verdict
    May 19, 2005
  3. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    434
    DVD Verdict
    Jan 12, 2006
  4. Lena

    A long journey to VOIP

    Lena, Jun 3, 2006, in forum: VOIP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,329
  5. Steven Johnson

    Architectural photo journey

    Steven Johnson, Dec 7, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    223
    Joseph Meehan
    Dec 7, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page