New Canon PRO-2000 / 4000 printers

[keithcooper]

Just checked out the list of inks and they've replaced the Green ink with the Chroma Optimizer. I'm really interested in how the final prints look from these printers.

I always felt that the red and blue made a bigger visible difference for my 8300 in my photos, although the R/G/B inks were (by quite a margin) the last of the original 300ml carts to run low.

In looking at recent iPF printers I did wonder how much a gloss coat would change things - looking forward to hearing what people find in 'real life' printing. I rarely use glossy papers, so the slight gloss differential was never a serious issue for me.

When comparing a profile made for the P7000 (llk) I've got here at the moment with the same paper on my 8300, the increase in gamuts from the Or/Grn on the P7000 and the Red/Blue on the 8300 are noticeable. Less so the green on the 8300.  I'd just point out that 'noticeable' in profiling doesn't mean 'obvious' in any print IMHO ;-)

As it stands, I'd be happy producing my prints on either the 8300 or P7000, with the P7000 managing a bit more density, and definitely pulling ahead in a general 'usability' comparison with my own 8300 or the 6450 I had here for a while.

[bteifeld]

The IPF6450 specifies that for cut sheet paper fed through its top slot, it is possible to get 3mm margins on all sides of the paper. The Windows driver implements this; RIPs like Caldera, Ergosoft, and Onyx do not. I'm wondering if the PRO-2000 model allows for 3mm margins on cut sheet paper.

[kevinmcdnyc]

I like that the physical size of these new printers are smaller than their predecessors. So I guess the only weak link is the longevity of the  of the ink set, if its the same as the 1000 printer.

[BillK]

Saw both these printers at WPPI in Las Vegas today. Canon rep said they should be available in June.
He said they don't have the cost of the new head yet but expects it to be a little less than the cost of
replacing both heads on the 8XXX series. MSRP for the PRO4000 $5995 as mentioned by "Breacher".
Pro 4000 comes with 190ML starter cartridges. Just slightly more than half of the ink that the current IPF8400 comes with.

Talking to one of there resellers in another booth, sounds like the street price will not be discounted as much
as their LF printers in the past. They said Canon is adopting a policy similar to Apple, where no reseller can sell
below a set price. So bottom line, they will cost more and come with less ink than the current IPF8400.

While the differences in the 8xxx series printers were subtle, these printers are a major redesign. The user experience is supposed to be very
similar, but under the hood they are very different.

Didn't see any prints, rep said the display models were prototypes. The Pro 4000 was about 12-14" narrower, height and depth about the same as
a 8xxx series. He did say ink fade resistance is better than the past, he said Wilhelm is working on it now.

[samueljohnchia]

He did say ink fade resistance is better than the past, he said Wilhelm is working on it now.

If that is true, it would be so swell.

[Ernst Dinkla]

I always felt that the red and blue made a bigger visible difference for my 8300 in my photos, although the R/G/B inks were (by quite a margin) the last of the original 300ml carts to run low.

The added RGB hues to CMY inks are used only at the corresponding hue angles and when sufficient saturation levels are reached. At least that is what I see happen in the HP prints made with 11 inks. This requires smart color mixing algorithms, HP has that in the OEM driver, Canon will have that but for example the Wasatch Softrip driver for the HP Z's did not have that. I could see RGB ink dots in the neutral patches where there was absolutely no need for color inks like that. Yes, for RGB inks the carts could be smaller than for the CcMmY inks. With my Z3200, the Light Grey, Yellow, Light Magenta, Matte Black empty fast, Red and Blue way slower. The Red, Blue and Green increase the gamut without doubt but little ink is needed for that.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[deanwork]

So, that's probably $800-900.00 US for the print head. That's very close to Epson so they better last longer than what they have now. The problem with that scenario is that if only one single nozzle is dead you have to replace the whole unit. Most of the time when I have to replace a Canon head it is because of one nozzle, not multiple nozzles. Actually I think that  has always been the case. Often the same with Epson in the past. Hp really had by far the best solution with having 6 heads with dual channels attached. That allowed them to charge $75.00 for a print head, and they last even longer than the Canon heads. Both are thermal.

They should have provided an option to add another gray. I don't need a gloss enhancer that scratches easily, but I'm sure some people will like it. Seems like it would be doable for them to write software that allowed you to choose either. That would be excellent. Don't know how committed they are to bw.

It will be probably be a year before we know if Epson or Canon wastes less ink and has less troubles. If Epson has reduced the size of their nozzles in order to eliminate clogging, they are going to be hard to beat. Maybe they will both be good, hopefully.

john

Saw both these printers at WPPI in Las Vegas today. Canon rep said they should be available in June.
He said they don't have the cost of the new head yet but expects it to be a little less than the cost of
replacing both heads on the 8XXX series. MSRP for the PRO4000 $5995 as mentioned by "Breacher".
Pro 4000 comes with 190ML starter cartridges. Just slightly more than half of the ink that the current IPF8400 comes with.

Talking to one of there resellers in another booth, sounds like the street price will not be discounted as much
as their LF printers in the past. They said Canon is adopting a policy similar to Apple, where no reseller can sell
below a set price. So bottom line, they will cost more and come with less ink than the current IPF8400.

While the differences in the 8xxx series printers were subtle, these printers are a major redesign. The user experience is supposed to be very
similar, but under the hood they are very different.

Didn't see any prints, rep said the display models were prototypes. The Pro 4000 was about 12-14" narrower, height and depth about the same as
a 8xxx series. He did say ink fade resistance is better than the past, he said Wilhelm is working on it now.

[narikin]

Hopefully they'll bring out an updated 60/64" model soon to compete with Epson's new 20000?

(though that may be unlikely as their current 60" model is not that old)

I'd love them to announce a 72 or 80+" version.

[BillK]

Hopefully they'll bring out an updated 60/64" model soon to compete with Epson's new 20000?

(though that may be unlikely as their current 60" model is not that old)

I'd love them to announce a 72 or 80+" version.

They have. Its the Pro 6000s a 60" 8 color printer.
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/printers/professional-printers/canon-imageprograf/imageprograf-pro-6000s

[GrahamBy]

The IPF6450 specifies that for cut sheet paper fed through its top slot, it is possible to get 3mm margins on all sides of the paper. The Windows driver implements this; RIPs like Caldera, Ergosoft, and Onyx do not. I'm wondering if the PRO-2000 model allows for 3mm margins on cut sheet paper.

According to Canon's French web site, it can print with 3mm at the sides but with cut sheet it needs 20mm top & bottom, for roll-feed it can do 3mm at the bottom but 20mm at the top (or the other way around).

They also specified the maximum print length as 18m (60ft), since someone asked :-)

[iCanvas]

It appears as if the Pro-4000 uses the same printhead that is in the Pro-1000. It is the same size (1.28") and the same amount of nozzles (18,432).

Gar

[samueljohnchia]

It appears as if the Pro-4000 uses the same printhead that is in the Pro-1000. It is the same size (1.28") and the same amount of nozzles (18,432).

Gar

Makes complete sense to have the entire family of printers use the same spare parts to reduce R&D and manufacturing costs. I suspect the inks are the same too, and if anything the driver tables could also be the same too. So ink longevity and gamut tests on the Pro-1000 could give us a very good idea of how the print quality will be from these new large formats. I'm most concern about the paper handling abilities of these new printers. The Canon 8400 marks up/leaves indentations on softer papers from too much pressure applied by the pinch rollers.

[narikin]

They have. Its the Pro 6000s a 60" 8 color printer.
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/printers/professional-printers/canon-imageprograf/imageprograf-pro-6000s

Yes, but unless I'm misunderstanding that's one of the 'S' versions (not sure if it stands for 'Speed' or 'Signage'!) and  not really for fine art printing.

A regular 6000 is needed, not 6000S. The art world is full of large prints headed to museums, they need 12 colors, not 8.

[Geraldo Garcia]

I find the economics of this new printhead quite interesting.  With the old one, when you had to replace it, you were only wasting half the ink.  Of course, if both had to be replaced within weeks of eachother, which was usually the case, then this point was moot.  If anything, having to then buy 2 new heads was likely more than twice as expensive as if it was only one.

Let me make it a bit more complicated: Last month I had to replace the right printhead of my 8400. I was curious about how much ink is actually wasted on the process, so I weighted the carts (all of them) before and after the replacement. To my surprise I noticed it drains inks from BOTH heads even when you replace just one. Yes, it sounds absurd but it drained 9ml (average) from every cart, 108ml total.

With that in mind and considering that we usually have to replace the other head within weeks or few months, having just one head may not be so worse if it costs a bit less than two. I still prefer HP's approach with six inexpensive heads though.

[Landscapes]

Let me make it a bit more complicated: Last month I had to replace the right printhead of my 8400. I was curious about how much ink is actually wasted on the process, so I weighted the carts (all of them) before and after the replacement. To my surprise I noticed it drains inks from BOTH heads even when you replace just one. Yes, it sounds absurd but it drained 9ml (average) from every cart, 108ml total.

With that in mind and considering that we usually have to replace the other head within weeks or few months, having just one head may not be so worse if it costs a bit less than two. I still prefer HP's approach with six inexpensive heads though.

Well I can't argue with your excellent methodology.  The trouble is that spending so much of a new printhead is a bit of a kick in the teeth.  I would love to put in a new head every 6 months if it was only $250.  I find that as they age, the printer cleans more anyway, does more nozzle checks, and just basically scares you since you know the end time is near.  After all this time, these heads should be much cheaper by now.

[shadowblade]

How much is the print head, and how long does it last? That would be the most relevant info.

What is the longevity of the new inkset? Epson's has improved significantly, and it is rumored from tests of the Canson desktop unit they they are going backwards? Just wondering.

Is the reduced longevity confirmed through testing, or just conjectured, based on the fact that Canon gave a more conservative estimate (50-75 years or something) instead of simply saying (100+ years) as with previous inks?

It would be very disappointing if true. At the same time, it's hard to imagine that a more-concentrated ink with a heavier pigment load would have less longevity than a less-concentrated ink. Unless they've gone and done something like replaced the yellow pigment with a less-permanent but more-intense version (like Epson in the K3 and HDR inksets) - but that would be stupid, given that longevity is such a big selling point for photo prints, which are usually intended for long-term display or archiving rather than short-term, point-of-sale display.

[shadowblade]

So, that's probably $800-900.00 US for the print head. That's very close to Epson so they better last longer than what they have now. The problem with that scenario is that if only one single nozzle is dead you have to replace the whole unit. Most of the time when I have to replace a Canon head it is because of one nozzle, not multiple nozzles. Actually I think that  has always been the case. Often the same with Epson in the past. Hp really had by far the best solution with having 6 heads with dual channels attached. That allowed them to charge $75.00 for a print head, and they last even longer than the Canon heads. Both are thermal.

They should have provided an option to add another gray. I don't need a gloss enhancer that scratches easily, but I'm sure some people will like it. Seems like it would be doable for them to write software that allowed you to choose either. That would be excellent. Don't know how committed they are to bw.

It will be probably be a year before we know if Epson or Canon wastes less ink and has less troubles. If Epson has reduced the size of their nozzles in order to eliminate clogging, they are going to be hard to beat. Maybe they will both be good, hopefully.

john

I thought Canon and HP printers remapped the nozzles to compensate for blockages, so that many nozzles need to fail before you start seeing missing lines, etc. - just that printing gets slower and slower as less of the head becomes usable. That's why Canon and HP printers may only appear to 'clog' once in 2 years, whereas Epson printers, which do not remap, start dropping lines when even one nozzle is clogged, so start showing problems after only a few days of inactivity.

[Geraldo Garcia]

I thought Canon and HP printers remapped the nozzles to compensate for blockages, so that many nozzles need to fail before you start seeing missing lines, etc. - just that printing gets slower and slower as less of the head becomes usable. That's why Canon and HP printers may only appear to 'clog' once in 2 years, whereas Epson printers, which do not remap, start dropping lines when even one nozzle is clogged, so start showing problems after only a few days of inactivity.

Not Exactly. Canon and HP heads have spare nozzles that are remapped as active nozzles when the the original nozzles get blocked beyond what a simple cleaning can rescue. The printing process dos not get slower because of that. The difference is that Canon (as far as I could feel) has more spare nozzles and will likely demand a new head before you notice a missing line, while HP heads have less spare nozzles (some say they have none, actually) and when you notice missing lines that a cleaning would not solve, just put a new head (quite inexpensive compared to Canon).

[deanwork]

I've wondered that too, does the Z series remap the nozzles buy having redundant nozzles available. . My heads last twice as long as the Canon heads. Thing is, the Z printers just don't waste ink. You can tell it by the ink levels in the carts and the fact that the waste tank goes for years and years and years without having to be swapped out. I don't know what they did but they certainly are efficient! Both Canons and Epsons waste a lot of ink in cleaning. In my experience Epson wastes the most. With their new head design they may cut a lot of that out with the larger nozzles.

Not Exactly. Canon and HP heads have spare nozzles that are remapped as active nozzles when the the original nozzles get blocked beyond what a simple cleaning can rescue. The printing process dos not get slower because of that. The difference is that Canon (as far as I could feel) has more spare nozzles and will likely demand a new head before you notice a missing line, while HP heads have less spare nozzles (some say they have none, actually) and when you notice missing lines that a cleaning would not solve, just put a new head (quite inexpensive compared to Canon).

[Czornyj]

In contrary to PF-05 there's no expected life span indicated for the new head design, and it also has less nozzles. My wild guess is that it will be much more durable and less prone to potential failures.