Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Kenneth Sky on March 29, 2007, 07:17:12 pm
-
I can't imagine a more damning report (aside from the excellent prints when it works) for Canon USA. The damage to the brand not just this specific product may take years and many ad campaigns to overcome what appears to be an arrogant disregard of not just any old consumers but opinion leaders. I have been holding off purchasing a HP B9180 until I saw the reports of the Canon 9500 but can I trust a company that so flagrantly disregards justified complaints? I think not.
-
Indeed. I'm looking at investing in a large format printer within the next 18 months, and the recent reports on ipf5000 QC issues, driver and documentation deficiencies, and especially unresponsive tech support and poor warranty have cemented that I will _not_ be buying an ipf5000. This coming from someone who owns two of their cameras and two of their smaller printers. If I'm investing 2000+ squirrel skins on a printer, it damn better work well, or get fixed ASAP if it breaks.
I have a feeling that Epson will update their large format printers soon, as there's increased competition from Canon and HP. Hopefully they'll fix the clogging issues and add true b&w printing without changing cartridges; two issues which seem to be the only complaints people have on Epsons - apart from high ink prices.
-
Indeed. I'm looking at investing in a large format printer within the next 18 months, and the recent reports on ipf5000 QC issues, driver and documentation deficiencies, and especially unresponsive tech support and poor warranty have cemented that I will _not_ be buying an ipf5000. This coming from someone who owns two of their cameras and two of their smaller printers. If I'm investing 2000+ squirrel skins on a printer, it damn better work well, or get fixed ASAP if it breaks.
I have a feeling that Epson will update their large format printers soon, as there's increased competition from Canon and HP. Hopefully they'll fix the clogging issues and add true b&w printing without changing cartridges; two issues which seem to be the only complaints people have on Epsons - apart from high ink prices.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109499\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Interestingly the bigger version the 8400(?) seems to get excellent support here in the UK, I wonder if Canon consider it more of a 'pro' printer hence the support?
-
I can confirm this. I was initially in love with the ipf5000 and for six months was sure it would be the perfect printer for me. After following developments carefully (and realizing that 17" just wasn't wide enough -- which came later, after the disillusionment), it was easy to turn my eyes to the z3100 -- a machine that costs three times as much.
The reports on the Wiki made everything clear.
(which is one of the reasons i've just started a z3100 wiki -- to share info about that printer as well.)
-
I don't agree that it's all bad..
My own experience with getting one of the first of these in Sydney was problem with the softwear that the dealer ( Baltronics ) and Canon Australia went to great lengths to sort out for me, including the dealer sending someone out to update the printer, all no charge.
I've just finished printing my new portfolio with it and even though I'm about as similar to a geek as Scarlett Johannson is to ugly, and never used a printer before, I've had almost no trouble since the update getting what I consider to be very good prints from first to last, the quality for what the printer costs is stunning and good or better then any prints I've had done at the labs.
-
As close as I was to purchasing the ip5000, I waited since I had just sold my Epson4000 and refused to be surprised again. My experience with Canon on the camera side has been at best mediocre. They behave as if they own the market and there is no competition. One must never forget how fragile one is. Canon is a big company and the experiences of many with this printer should send a message to the company. John Hollenberg has gone to the wall with this printer and performed a service to many with the wiki and now this review. A job well done, John. Thank you.
Carl
-
Canon is a big company and the experiences of many with this printer should send a message to the company. John Hollenberg has gone to the wall with this printer and performed a service to many with the wiki and now this review. A job well done, John. Thank you.
Unfortunately, it seems that the wall has won (for now). The Canon brand is certainly diminished in my eyes, although it won't affect my purchase of DSLRs in the least. Perhaps they will make the needed changes; most could be accomplished with the stroke of a pen. The only wild card is the lack of longevity data 13 months after the initial press release claiming preliminary results of at least 100 Wilhelm years.
On the bright side, it seems that the IPF5000 will qualify me for a $1000 or $1200 discount on the HP Z3100 :-)
However, don't think that I am down on the printer itself. It performs beautifully for me now and is a pleasure to use with the roll feed unit. I just can't in good conscience recommend that others buy it, considering Canons current policies and the lack of longevity data.
--John
-
I would strongly suggest sending a copy of this report with a cover letter via certified mail to:
Mr. Yoroku Adachi
President & CEO, Canon U.S.A., Inc.
Canon U.S.A., Inc.
One Canon Plaza
Lake Success, NY 11042
From what I have heard about the current state of the US Canon organization, I doubt that he is aware of any the problems with the IPF 5000.
-
Interestingly the bigger version the 8400(?) seems to get excellent support here in the UK, I wonder if Canon consider it more of a 'pro' printer hence the support?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109500\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I bought the iPF5000 last year, from Azzurri in the UK, and have been printing from the cassette, rear slot and the roll feed without any problems. It may be I was just lucky, but I am very pleased with this printer. Having said that I do agree that the manual is totally inadequate, but as I am someone who prefers to learn from trial and error that did not bother me. John's WiKi has been an invaluable source of information and Canon should consider giving the frequent posters some sort of recognition for their efforts by acting on their feedback (I bet some free ink cartridges would be welcome too )
-
"I have been holding off purchasing a HP B9180 until I saw the reports of the Canon 9500 but can I trust a company that so flagrantly disregards justified complaints? I think not."
Crikey. As someone looking to get an A3 printer, I can but second the above statement. The Canon is no longer on my short list. I used to have an Epson 870, and at least half the ink was wasted trying to clean the head, until finally no amount of cleaning worked, and I binned it. There are more than a few reports of clogging on the R1800 too, and very few for the HP.
-
I would strongly suggest sending a copy of this report with a cover letter via certified mail to:
Mr. Yoroku Adachi
President & CEO, Canon U.S.A., Inc.
Canon U.S.A., Inc.
One Canon Plaza
Lake Success, NY 11042
From what I have heard about the current state of the US Canon organization, I doubt that he is aware of any the problems with the IPF 5000.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109563\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
From what I have heard through back channels, he probably is aware. Still, an excellent idea.
For the record, Canon was made aware of the existence of this article (although not the exact contents) 2-3 weeks before publication. This was done through Wiki posters who have contacts with people high up at Canon. They were also informed of the general contents of the article--"just look at the front page of the Wiki and the Known Problems section". Supposedly various meetings, etc. were taking place. I had hoped to be able to write a different ending, e.g., that Canon had committed to making certain changes and the future looks a lot brighter than the past. Unfortunately, there has been only silence from Canon.
Perhaps Canon has conceded the photography market on this printer and decided to focus on those printing signs, banners, etc. One support tech told me that some large chain like Office Max (may not be the exact one) had ordered about 150 of these printers with installation included. He had personally installed about 50 of them in a number of different states, including setting up the networking, etc.
Maybe they just consider this printer a beta drop and will come out with the "real" printer under a different model name with all of these problems fixed and everything polished to the max. It's really hard to know what they are thinking. Perhaps they just decided to send the PR people back for more schooling. This is the worst PR job I can recall seeing on a product in recent memory.
These are just my thoughts and speculations, I am really as dumbfounded as the rest of you
--John
-
I realise that this thread is about a Canon printer, but sadly, the same doubts exist about the available A3+ printers too, and from all makers that seem to cater for photographers.
I've been keen to get myself a printer in the above size for quite a while, starting the research with the 2200 and the 2400 from Epson and the HP8750 as well. Nothing seems to be worth the price of purchase, either because it just doesn't work for long, service is lousy or because (HP) the consumables are difficult/impossible to find or the ink costs are open piracy.
I have had a couple of A4 Epsons and they have done little to inspire confidence either, but I was able to live with them because they were never intended for use as producers of sellable art prints, even if I have managed to coax some nice b/w work out of them. I don't want to go larger than A3+ and that does limit choice, I suppose, but we all have to live within some sort of monetary discipline and I hate getting effed by manufacturers with an eye to nothing beyond the bottom line. Perhaps this has something to do with the makers being Japanese; perhaps if a European company had been able to compete we would have seen a different mind-set at work, but somehow that seems doubtful too.
Ciao - Rob C
-
Full marks again John. Your report is well written and detailed. Well done.
I do hope you'll mail a copy of this to the head office in Japan as suggested. My thought is that a paper copy floating around the corporate offices are much harder to ignore than emails. I've been relying on your help and the Wiki to get my printer running too. As with everyone else I find the print quality is excellent but the documentation is so poor I've given up on it completely!
I've been a CPS for several years and have never seen this level of incompetence and apathy in the Canon photographic division although sometimes service has been pretty slow. At least the products are properly documented and the firmware issues get dealt with in a timely fashion.
Is the printer division an entity unto itself? It seems like all they care about is getting printers shipped out the door.
Again my thanks for writing John and to Michael for posting it. Please do send a copy to Japan Headquarters and let us know if they even bother to reply.
Funny that in a culture that values face and honor they're ignoring their customers like this.
-
Rob, the fact is that the Japanese product engineers and scientists are owed a tremendous amount of international recognition for what they have achieved in this field over the past fifteen years. It is nothing short of miraculous. We are producing work of a quality and with ease that was only something to dream about even eight years ago. And you can't tar all the companies with the same brush. Epson is a Japanese firm also, part of the Seiko Group with HQ in Nagano Japan, and my experience with their support on the professional printers is on the whole excellent. HP is an American company and they have released product with issues too. Now, if all of them are going to have issues (because they're rushing product to market too hastily), then you want to buy the unit that suffers the least of the difficulties that we know about and would bother you most, and from a company that offers the best customer support. The latter criterion rules Canon out for me. That leaves HP and Epson.
I would say the market is in a bit of quandary right now. HP has been working very hard to correct the few identified issues with the z3100, but that is a 4000 dollar investment and needs a fair bit of studio space. We don't know yet whether they will produce a smaller format 12-ink printer like the z3100, but if they do it won't be proportionately cheaper, because costs are not proportionate to the carriage size. It will just take less space, which for some is an important consideration. The B9180 seems to be a well-built high quality printer but some have remarked about print quality not being up to the Epsons. I can't assess that.
The Epson 3800 produces beautiful prints but a couple of issues have been identified. This is a major business for Epson, so you can count on a continuation of their history in releasing firmware up-dates to address whatever can be addressed in that manner. We don't know what they have up their sleeves in terms of forthcoming models or the timing. Based on experience, though, whatever is next may not be more than a year or so down the road. I have a gut feel that those people who don't need a new printer just now perhaps could do worse than to wait a while. For those who absolutely need a professional printer in the A3 range now for now - and need media flexibility, it looks like a choice between the HP B9180 and the Epson 3800. Both are worth serious consideration under those circumstances. If you don't need media flexibility - i.e. you do all your work on either matte or glossy, an Epson 4800 is a mighty good printer (eventhough there are periodic clogs and it uses a fair bit of ink on routine cleaning) and Epson supports it well.
-
As one of those who've adjusted to the foibles of our iPF5000s & are still proud of our image quality, I'm so sorry to be in complete agreement with the review. I just can't recommend a pro-level Canon printer to others. I'm particularly stunned to hear that my print heads were designed as $600/ea. 'consumables,' designed to last no more than a year.
Canon's broken feedback system - its inability to learn about its product from its users - is much more serious than any problem with the printers themselves. Many of us contributed to the Wiki to solve our own problems, help others, & bring matters to Canon's attention. In retrospect it's pretty amazing how Canon was unable to respond to customer feedback - even with a manual - & that this thorough & accurate report had to be written at all.
If I taught in a business school, I'd have some grad students get busy on a case study. This product & its odyssey could go down in the annals of management studies one of the more serious self-inflicted foot-wounds in marketing history.
-
I am glad that the issues with the IPF5000 but expecially with Canon have been exposed by John's review and I do hope Canon takes notice. However, I believe the IPF5000 is a great printer, I bought one in August last year and I never had a single problem (thanks also to the Wiki). I believe most IPF5000 users share my trouble free experience given that certainly if one had a problem he/she would write about it to John who in turn would mention it in the Wiki. My impression is that John has received few dozens reports while Canon must have sold at least few thousand mechines worldwide! People should try to keep things into perspective while I feel that many have been too quick at dismissing a very good product.
-
Nobody is questioning the product, which as John has stated many times, is brilliant when working.
What the report is questioning is Canon USA's policies towards its customers when the printer isn't working.
-
Nobody is questioning the product, which as John has stated many times, is brilliant when working.
What the report is questioning is Canon USA's policies towards its customers when the printer isn't working.
I'm not even questioning the reliability of the printer, which I believe to be excellent. If a printer isn't working, once the printer is fixed, it appears to just keep on printing without a hitch. We aren't getting any reports of parts breaking over and over again. All of the reports are generally regarding defects that are present fairly near the time of purchase (although there is some legitimate concern that roll feed units could have the gears pop off at an inopportune time, like 366 days after you bought the printer).
The IPF5000 Wiki is not the center of the IPF5000 universe (although it may be for a small group of posters ). We have about 65 actual members and 300-400 unique visitors per day. That is a lot of lurkers. We don't know if they own the printers or are just looking. There are about 15 reports of defective roll feed units. That would be a 25% figure based on the membership (probably way too high, but who knows).
Also, I have some anecdotal information to suggest that the roll feed unit problem is fairly widespread:
1) A poster to the Wiki reported that 3 roll feed units failed for someone doing a demo of the IPF5000. Don't know over what time period (hours, days, weeks). The audience was apparently not impressed. The reporter is deemed to be a reliable source based on his posting history.
2) Another poster reported that the service tech who came to fix his roll feed unit said he was fixing 4 roll feed units every week. Again, the poster was deemed reliable.
All we can do on the Wiki is identify trends. Since there are many people who don't know about the Wiki, we really can't come up with any kind of denominator. We can only identify the trouble spots, but can't tell how big they are. Conversely, we can identify many areas that AREN'T trouble spots, e.g., there is not a single report of clogging to the Wiki, EVER.
For some reason people are drawing the conclusion that I don't like the printer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Now that I know its quirks and my printer is working properly I am producing beautiful prints. It has a number of really good points, which are listed in the article. However, the Wiki recommendation is based on the weight of the available evidence. With the information at hand, would I go out and purchase this printer right now? No. Would I recommend that one of my friends purchase it? No. I know there is a good chance the roll feed unit will have to be repaired, and that may require more than one service call (I know that sounds nuts, since Canon knows the problem is common and has redesigned the parts, but it has been reported by several people). Why would I recommend a printer known to have these problems (warranty, timely service, poor documentation, questions about longevity) unless it was so much better than the competition in other areas that the risk and hassle was worth it?
The one wild card in this is the question of print longevity. Since I don't sell my work, it isn't that big an issue to me, but for those who do I would be concerned. It has been 13 months since the initial estimate of "at least 100 years". Data on other printers has come and gone. I would be worried if this was important to me. I think this is actually the biggest cloud hanging over the printer. Past experience has shown that there can be large differences between ink sets, and big differences between particular ink and paper combinations. Note that HP has outstanding Wilhelm results, better than Epsons. It all depends how important that is to your needs.
Per a personal communication from Joseph Holmes (great landscape photographer and creator of Ekta Space http://josephholmes.com (http://josephholmes.com) ), the Wilhelm methodology does not account for "reciprocity failure". In other words, reducing light intensity does not produce an exactly corresponding increase in time. The factor to correct for this varies, but is thought to average around 2.5. Thus 100 "Wilhelm years" is probably more like 40 real years. For that reason, you may want a lot more "Wilhelm years" on your prints, depending on your application. Again, this is according to Joseph Holmes, and beyond the realm of my own knowledge.
One thing I am very pleased about is that the article is sparking a healthy dialog. My findings are not set in stone, and as I said in the article, if Canon makes changes to the problem areas you will see the Wiki recommendation change in a heartbeat. The reason I wrote and published the article was not to keep people from buying the printer or trash Canon. It was to try to spur Canon to action so I can again recommend purchase of the IPF5000!
--John
-
>It was to try to spur Canon to action so I can again recommend purchase of the IPF5000!
I see it exactly this way. We want great printers and the IPF has all the potential. This is also the reason we linked to this article at Outback Print. We want all(!) printer manufacturers to enter a qualified dialog with their customers.
Uwe
-
Right on Uwe!! I love my IPF5000, but feel like I got married and didn’t know about the pre-nup I signed at the bachelor party. Canon better fix this or the party is over. Everybody should call their dealers and get this out in the open.
Thanks
Dennis
-
Hi John, thanks for the article, also thanks for mentioning my name, I am emailing copies to all my friends and family . I hope my posts on the Wiki are helping out. I feel that I am probably one of the least experienced users on the Wiki. I will normally post my views and thoughts even when they might not make any sense.
Well, for the sake of trying to keep this short I just deleted 2 pages of my journey into digital photography/printing to give the view of a beginner/intermediate user of the iPF5000.
A quick rundown. I have been using letter sized consumer photo printers for about 6 years. All for personal/gift use, no selling of prints. I used 3rd party inks because OEM inks costs to much (for my purposes 10x more for OEM inks over 3rd party inks). Also, I have never been worried about fading (even though some ink/paper combo’s fade very quick). I had never thought about a pigment printer because of ink costs. I then heard about the iPF5000 (and Epson 3800) that, for me, would bring pigment ink printing costs down to a reasonable level. I bought the iPF5000 printer. I knew it was big and I have the space for it but it is BIG compared to the 3800. But if you want a roll feeder and a cassette it is still the only cost effective option out there. Only thing would be if it was able to print on smaller sheets (4x6) like the 3800. I would not buy a 13x19 pigment printer at this time because of ink costs.
Anyways, the printer arrived (took another week to get the roll feed unit). During initial setup the printer had a printhead error. The 1st call to Canon had them sending me a new printhead and new set of inks for that printhead (6 cartridges) overnight. Installed the new printhead and ended up with a ‘maintenance cartridge full’ error and could not continue. It was Friday night and I had to go buy a new maintenance cartridge on Saturday. Installed and the printer finished initial setup. 2nd call to Canon on Monday had them sending me a new maintenance cartridge (now I have an extra when needed).
After setup used Qimage to make my 1st print. Came out ok, used Kirkland glossy paper with Canon Photo Paper Plus profile. Anyways, the prints came out as I would expect from reading the forums. Quality wise looked the same as my consumer letter sized photo printers. They now have gloss differential that to me is not that bad. You have to get the light just right to see it. But, now I hope I do not have any fading issues. Going from dye to pigment is like going from a p&s camera to a Dslr because of the saturation. I got so used to over saturated colors that when going to less saturated images it took awhile to get used to even though the less saturated images are normally more accurate to the scene.
I personally do not think that having to let the printer know what paper you load is a big deal. You are at the printer loading it, it only takes 15 seconds to select the correct paper/size settings in the printer. Then no more hassle until you load more paper. I do not use the tray so I do not have to set it after each use (even though it keeps the last selected items as default).
Also, no difference printing on a large format printer over a small home printer. Yes there are more options in the print driver for color settings and stuff but nothing to make printing any more difficult.
Once my roll feed unit arrived I went and purchased the least expensive roll of paper I could find, Canon Heavyweight Matte-coated. This is so I can get used to printing on the roll and learning proper post processing for larger prints. My roll feeder was bad from the beginning but at this time it does not cause me much grief. I have to push the paper into the printer for it to load (I guess normally the roll unit will take the paper once inserted ½ to 1 inch. I also get errors when ejecting the roll but those just need to be cleared to print from the cassette. The tray also does not work but I have not needed the tray yet. I will get with Canon at some point to get the roll unit repaired.
With the far edge banding issue that was out there. I only had 2 or 3 photographs that it would show up on. I even downloaded and printed the banding test file that John had and could not see the banding in his file, also for me only noticed on glossy paper. For me, I knew it was there but most people (friends and family) did not notice (or at least not mention it). The upgrade to firmware 1.23 with the updated far edge adjust fixes that concern. The 1.08 firmware far edge adjustment did nothing. I also had a period of good prints with glossy, going to matte for a week, then back to glossy only to find carriage strikes on the prints. I head height adjustment fixed that but later changed back to auto and no longer had carriage strikes, not sure what happened there.
For me the issues are ink longevity and printhead life. I do not print a lot. At the rate I print I think it will take me a couple of years to replace all cartridges. I just hope the printheads can last 5 or more years.
I think right now with the new line of printers if someone wants a large format printer (ok a 17" printer) that has a cassette the only options are the Epson 3800 and Canon iPF5000. My printing needs do not need over 17" at this time. I also would not get one without a cassette. If they want cassette and roll then it is the iPF5000. If any family or friends asked me what one to get it is an issue with wanting a roll and space requirements. If they would like a roll option it would be the Canon, if not probably the 3800 because of size. I know printhead life and ink longevity are big considerations but at this time you have to guess that they would be similar to Epsons. I also hope if I ever have a ink cartridge chip failure it gets replaced. Another thing is how necessary the vacuum system of the Canon iPF5000 maybe it really helps keep the paper flat, maybe necessary for rolls, I do not know.
Anyways, so far I am happy I bought the printer even with the few issues I have had and still have (roll feed unit). A lot of that still goes to the fact that ink costs seem to be much less than the 3800. It would be nice to have a better manual but who reads the manuals anyways , thats what the Wiki is for. I really like what HP has been doing with the technical newsletters that they have been putting out. Also, it would be nice to know what changes are being made with newer firmware.
Well, if you got this far thanks for reading.
Tony Bartlett
-
It might be interesting to contrast Canon service and warranty attitude reported here with Epson's as reported in this thread:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=15628 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15628)
-
The complaints about Canon customer service sound far too familiar to me. My experiences with them in Switzerland have led to the conclusion that here no customer service exists. Unfriendly and unhelpful in case of problems. After spending more than USD 25k on their equipment I expected something very different.
Examples for perfect service oriented companies: Alpa, Hasselblad and Sinar. In case of problems I was always helped immediately.
-
Hi John, thanks for the article, also thanks for mentioning my name, I am emailing copies to all my friends and family . I hope my posts on the Wiki are helping out. I feel that I am probably one of the least experienced users on the Wiki. I will normally post my views and thoughts even when they might not make any sense.
Tony Bartlett
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109816\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just for the record, Tony B. is Tony Bartlett; tbonanno is Tony Bonanno (we get confused on the WIKI too :-).
Generally speaking, I've been very pleased with my iPF5000. Trouble-free performance and print quality since early August, 2006. Thanks to John's Wiki site and Michael's forums for filling in the information gaps.
Ironically, the only hair-pulling issue I had was the trailing edge banding. The fact that there was an adjustment designed into the printer that totally solved the "problem" was the good news. The bad news was that no one at Canon USA knew about the adjustment !! (And of course, there was NO documentation about it). The WIKI site users, after many weeks of frustration and collective troubleshooting, finally figured it out for themselves (and for everyone else too). A truly inexcusable scenario on Canon's part.
Canon, Are you listening ?
Tony Bonanno
-
To be fair, my experiences with Canon Tech Support in the US have been different than what you're describing in Switzerland.
Calls have been answered immediately (no waiting in automated hold queues). The people have all been very friendly and have done their best to be helpful. I've never once had a bad or unfriendly experience with them.
But the problem seems to be that while US Canon Tech Support does their best, they've been left twisting in the wind with the rest of us because they can't get answers from Canon either. Add to that some corporate policies which further tie their hands, and you've got a situation where these people try their best but simply do not have the information or authority to get things fixed in some situations.
Jim H.
-
Just my two pence worth. I actually found that the Canon did every thing I wanted. I did have a them problem of the faulty starter cartridge - i.e. it stopped getting recognized by the printer. But a quick phone call to my dealer (DES in Sydney) and all was fixed in two days.
The one thing that did strike a chord was the bit about Wilhelm not publishing their findings. Both because I was promised longevity in my prints and also because it throws into question Wilhelm Research's integrity.
-- Sugendran
-
Both because I was promised longevity in my prints and also because it throws into question Wilhelm Research's integrity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109932\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This has categorically nothing to do with WIR's integrity. This part of WIR is a commercial business conducting tests for its clients under contract. It is unimagineable that WIR could simply publish its clients' data at will without the clients' authority to do so. The problem is the client, not WIR. In fact, what this episode indicates to me is a situation of total integrity on the part of WIR - they are most likely telling the client the results as they see them. What the client does as a result of that information is the client's business - not a problem for WIR.
-
This has categorically nothing to do with WIR's integrity. This part of WIR is a commercial business conducting tests for its clients under contract. It is unimagineable that WIR could simply publish its clients' data at will without the clients' authority to do so. The problem is the client, not WIR. In fact, what this episode indicates to me is a situation of total integrity on the part of WIR - they are most likely telling the client the results as they see them. What the client does as a result of that information is the client's business - not a problem for WIR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah right. My bad. I guess I had a different view to what WIR was doing. Didn't know about the commercial side of things.
-
This has categorically nothing to do with WIR's integrity. This part of WIR is a commercial business conducting tests for its clients under contract. It is unimagineable that WIR could simply publish its clients' data at will without the clients' authority to do so. The problem is the client, not WIR. In fact, what this episode indicates to me is a situation of total integrity on the part of WIR - they are most likely telling the client the results as they see them. What the client does as a result of that information is the client's business - not a problem for WIR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It has everything to do with WIR's integrity. I don't see a reason why WIR couldn't do the testing without Canon's approval - after all, the printer, ink and papers are available in the stores.
Any such testing that requires approval by the manufacturer screams "conflict of interest," and is definitely an issue of integrity. And it appears that conflict of interest is exactly what's happening here, as it's apparent that WIR was commissioned to do such testing a year or so ago. Yet no published results.
I do understand that such testing is not cheap, and as long as there's no industry-wide body to fund such tests, manufacturers have to do so. Any reputable manufacturer who stands by their product would give the printer, inks and papers to WIR with no strings attached, ie. results get published even if they don't please the PR people at the printer manufacturer.
-
I'd just like for Canon to know that this really does matter. I've spent a lot of money with them the last few years on bodies, lenses etc. and need a printer. It has to WORK. If they want to send me one for free and have me as a beta tester, ok i'll put up with some bugs, but when i'm spending thousands of dollars for something it should be bullet proof. And yeah it is thousands when you figure in paper, inks, and now apparently maybe $600 heads every year times 2.
I had high hopes for this printer. It seemed to do all the things Epson wasn't doing but I decided to wait after reading about what a mess the non-existent manuals were. I figured i'd wait, they'd get that straightened out, get the kinks worked out and then I could buy. I started researching again when I started seeing the prices falling. It hasn't taken long to see that this printer is getting killed by it's lack of technical support. I cannot imagine getting this printer, it being DOA or near to it, and Canon not getting me another new one right away, much less waiting for weeks for it to work. When you get a new toy you want to play right then.
So for now i'll wait. None of the offerings from Epson, HP or Canon have everything. Perhaps in the next generation Canon will get HP's customer support and colorimeter(and tell us how long the prints will last), Epson will get Canons clog free operation, 16 bit output, wider gamut and frugalness with ink, and HP's calorimiter, and HP will get a cassette feed and a price drop. Whoever does the most of these things will get some money out of my, and likely many others wallets.
It just seems like printers are at the DSLR equivalent of say the Nikon D1, or Canon D60. Yes you could use them and get good results but they were pricey and didn't work well in a lot of situations. It was mainly the early adopters that bought them, and shared info on line(remember the D1's Magenta problem.)I'm waiting for the 10D, which to me was a huge jump in quality and a huge fall in price. Heck i'd even pay up for a 1DS2, very expensive, built like a tank, capable of incredible quality and years ahead of the competition. It's just a matter of who's going to get it all together.
-
None of the offerings from Epson, HP or Canon have everything. Perhaps in the next generation Canon will get HP's customer support and colorimeter(and tell us how long the prints will last), Epson will get Canons clog free operation, 16 bit output, wider gamut and frugalness with ink, and HP's calorimiter, and HP will get a cassette feed and a price drop.
I think you nailed it here. Each of the printers from the big 3 has just enough problems (different problems, but just as many) to be a real pain in the butt. I swore off Epson for the clogging and the black ink swap, and look what I got myself into with the Canon. The HP DJ130 I had was a bitch for loading paper, and never produced decent color in the dark shadows, plus if you got a drop of water near it, forget it. Each of these offerings was close, but had major drawbacks. I think I will sit out the HP Z3100 and wait for the next round.
--John
-
I seem to recall that, when the Wilhelm Institute first put up a web site, it had a chunk of background info and said results for the Epson 7600/9600 (original UltraChrome) would be posted in a few weeks. Months later, those results still were missing in action. When they finally were put up - with nary a word of apology or explanation - they were in the 70 to 150 year range, pretty much setting the bar for anything to follow.
My understanding is that the Wilhelm Institute has a standard light intensity they use for accelerated testing. If a paper starts to show problems after a simulated 20 years, then that result will show in X months of real time. So presumably it would take 5X months to get to 100 years, etc. If this is the case, and if the requisite number of months simply hasn't passed since Canon submitted papers, printer, and ink for testing, then might they not yet be posted for that reason?
-
My understanding is that the Wilhelm Institute has a standard light intensity they use for accelerated testing. If a paper starts to show problems after a simulated 20 years, then that result will show in X months of real time. So presumably it would take 5X months to get to 100 years, etc. If this is the case, and if the requisite number of months simply hasn't passed since Canon submitted papers, printer, and ink for testing, then might they not yet be posted for that reason?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, this is possible. However, some quick calculations based on the testing standards have me concerned.
Wilhelm uses 35,000 Lux illumination, presumably on 24 hours per day. There is assumed to be a recirocal relationship between light intensity and time, such that:
light intensity * time = constant
The "Wilhelm years" are calculated based on 450 lux for 12 hours a day. Thus, assuming no reciprocity failure (which is how the calculations are done):
Wilhelm years = [time to fading] * 2 * 35000 / 450
or
Wilhelm years = 155.5 * [time to fading]
Note that the factor of 2 is due to the fact that a Wilhelm year assumes only 12 hours per day illumination of the print.
If there was preliminary data in February, 2006 that prints would last at least 100 years (on selected, but unspecified media), the test had presumably been going on for 100/155.5 years, or about 8 months. Since another 13 months have passed, the data would presumably show (if no fading) a longevity of at least:
100 + ((13/12)*155.5) = 268 years
Thus my contention that data has presumably been available for quite some time about the longevity of the inks (or at least a minimum amount of time, if the tests are still in progress because fading has not yet occurred sufficient to end the test).
--John
-
Data for the HP Vivera pigment inks is already available from WIR. Weren't the Vivera pigments and the Lucia pigments released around the same time?
-
If there was preliminary data in February, 2006 that prints would last at least 100 years (on selected, but unspecified media), the test had presumably been going on for 100/155.5 years, or about 8 months. Since another 13 months have passed
Heaven knows I have no reason to take Canon's side, but other interpretations occur. The R&D on new ink sets is likely going on fairly continuously at all the major printer mfgs. I imagine there are batches of different formulations of prospective new pigment inks from the Canon labs sent to WIR for some sort of testing quite regularly. They may even specify preliminary, accelerated testing - anything to get some feedback about longevity to help them weigh the various alternatives.
If so, it would be those preliminary numbers they are quoting when they say "at least 100 years", and WIR may well have needed to start all over again with the final formulation and/or new papers and/or using their standard methodology.
-
I don't think there's much point speculating about this. The printer has been on the market long enough, and the final inks they are manufacturing most likely formulated and tested a long enough time back that they could have authorized publication of data if they were so inclined. They owe the world a statement. Let us see if they make it.
-
I've stated this in the past, but I really think that Canon didn't expect so many prosumers/consumers to buy the IPF5000 line. I think the rebates accelerated this even further.
Canon's website is unbelievably devoid of information on this line of printer. It's so sad that they are killing their products reputation like this when it didn't have to be this way.
I love my printer and have had no problems, and found tech support to be very helpful in the US. I just think there is some kind of disconnect in the company. An arrogance at some level.
I don't regret buying the 8000. I'm so glad I bought it before this bad PR hit because I probably wouldn't have, had I heard what I'm hearing now. I really don't even think the problems are that bad, and I read reports of many people getting things replaced right away. The company is just killing themselves with this no-communcation policy.
-Jonathan